Joshua Vickery

This was a costs decision following a jury verdict in an insurance coverage dispute arising from a commercial fire loss.

The plaintiff recovered the balance of an endorsement after the insurer denied liability despite an alleged promise to pay if a code-compliant structure was rebuilt.

The court held that full indemnity costs were not justified on the misconduct record, but gave elevated weight to indemnity, the insurer's serious misconduct, and a reasonable withdrawn offer to settle under Rule 49.13.

Costs were fixed at $200,000 plus HST and $50,000 in disbursements, and prejudgment interest was awarded at an averaged 2.15% rate over the ten-year period.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that granted the applicant a 50% award ($1,300) for unreasonably withholding approval of a chiropractic treatment plan.

The insurer argued the Tribunal misapprehended the medical evidence and improperly applied the standard for an award.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the insurer was attempting to re-litigate the weighing of evidence and that the original adjudicator provided adequate reasons and acted within their discretion in granting the maximum award.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle and accepted a $3,000 cash settlement from the driver, signing an agreement not to pursue insurance claims.

Over a year later, after losing her job and access to collateral benefits, she applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer argued she was barred from proceeding due to her failure to notify them within seven days of the accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant's explanations for the delay were not credible or reasonable, noting she consciously chose the cash settlement and only sought benefits when her circumstances changed.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders), income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the catastrophic impairment threshold, as she failed to establish a marked impairment in the sphere of social functioning, noting her ongoing close familial relationships and 18-month post-accident employment at a school.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for income replacement benefits, finding the respondent's medical experts persuasive that she did not suffer a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment tasks.

The claims for attendant care benefits and treatment plans were dismissed due to a lack of evidence demonstrating the expenses were incurred or reasonable and necessary.

The appellant, Rowan Gray, appealed a Superior Court decision that removed him as Executor and Estate Trustee of his mother's estate due to his failure to administer estate assets.

The motion judge had also declined to appoint one of the respondents as a replacement, instead opting for a professional executor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the motion judge's application of the high threshold for removing an estate trustee, the determination that certain claims were not statute-barred under the Trustee Act, or the finding of sufficient corroboration under the Evidence Act.

The court affirmed the motion judge's decision as legally sound and practical, and awarded costs against the appellant personally.

At a case conference in a dependants' relief application, the applicants sought the summary appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The court adjourned the request to allow the responding party proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, noting that the respondent's counsel lacked instructions.

The court ordered the deposit of the will on consent and urged the parties to cooperate to avoid unnecessary costs in a small estate.

The plaintiff, operating under a pseudolegal name, brought an action against his siblings regarding their deceased father's estate, seeking damages, property, and other unusual relief.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff lacked legal standing as it was not a recognized legal entity.

Furthermore, the court held there was no genuine issue for trial, as the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to support his allegations of procedural impropriety, inheritance entitlement, or property mismanagement.

The action was dismissed with prejudice, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the plaintiff personally.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a motion to set aside a noting in default.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by failing to consider the balance of prejudice and the full context of the dispute, including the appellants' arguable defence and counterclaim.

The court emphasized the strong preference for deciding civil actions on their merits.

The appeal was allowed, the noting in default was set aside, and the appellants were directed to file their statement of defence and counterclaim.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Roger J. dated January 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay costs of $4,000 to the responding party.

The Municipality of Mississippi Mills applied to declare Bryant Cougle and Brylin Construction Ltd. vexatious litigants under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court reviewed a history of persistent, unsuccessful, and abusive litigation and communications by the respondents concerning a property zoning dispute dating back to the 1970s.

The court found that the respondents had instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted themselves in a vexatious manner, repeatedly raising issues already decided and making unsubstantiated allegations.

The court declared both respondents vexatious litigants and prohibited them from instituting or continuing any further proceedings without leave of a Superior Court judge.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the Municipality due to the respondents' sanctionable behavior.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default so they could file a statement of defence and counterclaim.

The plaintiffs had noted the defendants in default after they failed to file a defence for nearly a year.

A previous court order had granted the defendants an extension to file, which they missed, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and difficulties retaining counsel.

The court applied the factors for setting aside a noting in default and found the defendants' delay significant and their explanations uncompelling.

The motion was dismissed.