Scott Smith

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing lower back and psychological conditions prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of any pre-existing conditions that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed minor, and her claims for additional medical benefits and examination costs were dismissed.

This was a costs ruling following a discovery motion in which the defendants were successful.

The plaintiff conceded the defendants' entitlement to costs and did not object to the amount claimed.

The court awarded the defendants their requested costs of $9,212.36, consisting of fees and disbursements found to be fair and reasonable.

This was a costs decision following a successful bifurcation motion by the defendants in a large misfeasance in public office action.

The plaintiff conceded entitlement, hourly rates, and disbursements, but argued that time spent preparing an affidavit was excessive for a procedural motion.

The court declined to second-guess successful counsel's preparation time, finding the affidavit materially helpful and the hours not grossly excessive.

Applying proportionality and reasonableness principles, the court allowed the defendants' bill of costs in full.

On a defence motion in a municipal misfeasance in public office action arising from a federal environmental assessment of a highway project, the court granted leave to conduct discovery of the plaintiff by both written interrogatories and oral examination under Rule 31.02.

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars were largely a regurgitation of the pleadings and that, given the breadth of allegations against numerous individual defendants, written interrogatories would efficiently clarify the specific bad faith and illegality allegations made against each defendant.

The court rejected the plaintiff's fairness objections and accepted that a combined process could reduce duplication, narrow oral discovery, and move the long-delayed action toward trial.

Costs were left for written submissions.

The plaintiff municipality moved to bifurcate a tort action alleging misfeasance in public office arising from a federal environmental assessment order affecting a highway project.

The court held that Rule 6.1.01 permits bifurcation only with the consent of the parties and therefore ousted jurisdiction to order separate liability and damages hearings over objection.

In any event, applying pre-rule bifurcation principles and the Air Canada factors, the court found the liability and damages issues were intertwined because proof of misfeasance required proof of resulting harm.

The motion was dismissed.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking declarations and partial summary judgment based on res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process in a civil action alleging misfeasance in public office, the court determined costs.

The moving party had sought numerous orders asserting that findings from a prior Federal Court decision conclusively established elements of liability against federal officials involved in an environmental review of a highway project.

The court held the motion was overly complex, repeatedly amended, and entirely unsuccessful.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from appellate authorities, the court concluded that the defendants’ claimed costs were modest given the scale and duration of the proceedings.

Costs of $309,844.95 were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant, a minor whose mother was killed in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

The parties engaged in settlement discussions and purportedly reached an agreement.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce the settlement, seeking an order for the insurer to pay a lump sum.

The insurer argued there was no binding settlement due to a lack of consensus ad idem regarding the scope of the release.

The arbitrator found he had jurisdiction to determine the existence of a settlement but concluded that no binding agreement was reached due to mutual mistake regarding the scope of the claims and the temporal scope of the settlement.

The motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed.