4 total
Successful responding party on a discovery motion awarded $45,000 in partial indemnity costs.
Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion to strike a Notice of Examination, the parties made written submissions on costs.
The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $84,621.20, arguing the defendant's conduct was reprehensible.
The defendant argued for partial indemnity costs of no more than $30,000.
The court found the defendant's conduct did not warrant elevated costs and awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs in the all-inclusive amount of $45,000.
The court dismissed the employer's motion to substitute its corporate representative for discovery, affirming the plaintiff's right to examine the president.
The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's notice of examination for discovery of the defendant's president, Linda Kuga, and sought to substitute Alessandro Mendes, Vice-President of Research and Innovation, as the corporate representative.
The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the defendant failed to discharge its onus to show that Ms. Kuga was an inappropriate corporate representative.
The court applied the three-factor test for substituting a corporate representative, concluding that Ms. Kuga was sufficiently knowledgeable, it would not be oppressive to examine her, and the plaintiff would be prejudiced by examining a less knowledgeable subordinate.
Application for medical benefits dismissed; injuries fell within Minor Injury Guideline and cap was exhausted.
The applicant sought medical benefits for chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 cap had been exhausted.
The applicant argued the respondent's denial notices were defective under s. 38(8) of the Schedule and that a pre-existing condition of chronic chest pain warranted treatment outside the MIG.
The Tribunal found the denial notices were compliant and that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG.
The claims for medical benefits, interest, a special award, and costs were dismissed.
Costs request denied; applicant's non-attendance at case conference due to family emergency was not unreasonable.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.
After the applicant failed to attend a rescheduled case conference because he had to travel overseas to attend to his ill mother, the respondent requested costs under Rule 19.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant's non-attendance under the circumstances did not constitute unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith behaviour.
