Roman Baber

This costs endorsement followed the abandonment of three scheduled motions in an accident benefits and tort action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a minor plaintiff.

The insurer had moved for summary judgment dismissing aggravated and punitive damages claims, while the plaintiff had cross-moved for a declaration that the Minor Injury Guidelines did not apply and had also proposed an amendment to plead bad faith damages.

After the insurer delivered an OCF 9 confirming the claim fell outside the Minor Injury Guidelines and the plaintiff narrowed or abandoned his other positions, the motions became unnecessary.

The court held both sides had engaged in tactical gamesmanship that caused needless motion practice, and ordered costs in the cause rather than awarding costs to either side on the abandoned motions.

This costs endorsement followed the abandonment of three scheduled motions in an accident benefits and tort action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a minor plaintiff.

The insurer had moved for summary judgment dismissing aggravated and punitive damages claims, while the plaintiff had cross-moved for a declaration that the Minor Injury Guidelines did not apply and had also proposed an amendment to plead bad faith damages.

After the insurer delivered an OCF 9 confirming the claim fell outside the Minor Injury Guidelines and the plaintiff narrowed or abandoned his other positions, the motions became unnecessary.

The court held both sides had engaged in tactical gamesmanship that caused needless motion practice, and ordered costs in the cause rather than awarding costs to either side on the abandoned motions.

At a case conference arising from scheduling of a proposed summary judgment motion in a motor vehicle accident action involving a minor plaintiff and an accident benefits insurer, the court addressed inefficiency in the conduct of the litigation and fixed a timetable for competing motions.

The insurer proposed summary judgment dismissing punitive and aggravated damages claims, while the plaintiff proposed a cross-motion concerning the applicability of the Minor Injury Guidelines and a motion to amend to add bad faith damages.

The court recorded a judicial admission limiting the extra-contractual claims to the insurer's insistence on applying the Minor Injury Guidelines despite its own psychological assessment.

The endorsement emphasized proportionality, cooperation, and timely case management, and provided directions for cross-examinations, motion materials, and a further case conference.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff bank succeeded in obtaining judgment against one defendant for fraud and under a personal guarantee, the court addressed competing claims for costs.

The bank sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $600,000, while certain defendants who successfully defended fraud allegations sought substantial indemnity costs for both trial and a prior Mareva injunction motion.

The court found that the bank had overstated and pursued broad allegations of fraud despite prior judicial warnings, unnecessarily lengthening the litigation.

Costs were therefore limited to partial indemnity and further reduced under Rule 57 for litigation conduct.

After applying equitable set‑off against costs awarded to two defendants, the court ordered one defendant to pay net costs to the bank.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

After the insurer denied certain benefits, the respondent applied for mediation but commenced a civil action just days later, before the 60-day statutory mediation period expired.

The insurer brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action under s. 281(2) of the Insurance Act, which the motion judge dismissed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the action, holding that the statute clearly bars the commencement of a proceeding until mediation has failed or the 60-day period has expired.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing an equipment financing lease, arguing the lease was illegal and void for contravening the Electrical Safety Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the lease contained non-recourse provisions and that not every statutory breach invalidates a commercial contract for illegality.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the lease's enforceability.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for the respondent's investment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility were supported by the record and revealed no error.