5 total
Trial judge fixes partial indemnity costs after jury verdict in motor vehicle injury action.
Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff obtained a damages award after the jury found the defendant negligent.
The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $547,000 or partial indemnity costs of approximately $417,000, while the defendant argued costs should be limited to $100,000 in fees and $50,000 in disbursements.
Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the guidance from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court considered factors including the importance of the claim, the complexity of the medical evidence, the conduct of the parties at trial, and the proportionality of costs to the damages recovered.
The court concluded that substantial indemnity costs were not justified but that significant partial indemnity costs were appropriate given the complexity of the evidence and trial process.
Appeals dismissed; CPP child benefits not deductible from IRBs, and hybrid psychological impairment rating upheld.
The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the insured was entitled to ongoing income replacement benefits and that CPP child benefits were not deductible from those benefits.
The insured cross-appealed the arbitrator's finding that she was not catastrophically impaired, arguing the arbitrator erred in assessing her psychological whole person impairment at 28%.
The Director's Delegate dismissed both appeals.
The Delegate held that CPP child benefits are not 'disability pension benefits' under the Schedule and are therefore not deductible.
The Delegate also found that the arbitrator's factual findings on causation for the insured's disc herniations and conversion disorder were supported by evidence and reasonable.
Finally, the Delegate upheld the arbitrator's use of a hybrid approach to rate the insured's psychological impairment, finding it was a reasonable exercise of discretion that did not constitute an error of law.
Partial stay of accident benefits order granted pending appeal regarding deductibility of CPP child benefits.
State Farm appealed an arbitrator's decision awarding the respondent income replacement benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
State Farm sought a stay of the payment orders pending the appeal.
The Director's Delegate found that a complete stay would cause undue hardship to the respondent given the lengthy delays in the proceedings.
However, the Delegate granted a partial stay limited to the extent of Canada Pension Plan child benefits received by the respondent, as the deductibility of those benefits raised a legitimate and substantive question of law.
Respondents awarded costs of appeal despite order being set aside, as they successfully defeated summary judgment.
Following an appeal that set aside an order extending limitation periods but adjourned the issues to trial, all parties sought costs.
The Court of Appeal determined that the respondents were substantially successful because they defeated the appellants' motion for summary judgment and maintained their position that the limitation issues should be decided at trial.
The respondents were awarded costs of $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.
Appeal allowed; extension of limitation period under Family Law Act must be determined at trial.
The deceased was struck and killed by two motorists while walking on a highway after becoming intoxicated at a college event.
The deceased's family commenced an action under the Family Law Act more than three years after the accident.
The motion judge extended the two-year limitation period under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act and applied the discoverability rule.
The Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeal, holding that the plaintiffs' unawareness of the limitation period did not postpone it, and that whether the requirements of s. 2(8) and the discoverability rule were met should be determined at trial rather than on a motion.
