8 total
Defendant ordered to pay costs for wasting time at pre-trial conference by maintaining uncommunicated no-liability position.
The plaintiff, who travelled from Ireland for a pre-trial conference regarding a motor vehicle accident, sought costs after the conference failed to result in a settlement.
The defendant maintained a 'no liability' position contrary to their stance at mediation, without communicating this change in advance.
The court found the defendant's behavior obdurate and the pre-trial conference substantially a waste of time.
Pursuant to Rule 50.12 and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's out-of-pocket travel expenses and counsel fees, as well as the fees of the other defendants' counsel in the cause.
Application for accident benefits dismissed and costs awarded after applicant failed to attend arbitration hearing.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
After her counsel was removed from the record, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing despite receiving proper notice.
As no evidence was adduced to support her claims, the application was dismissed.
The insurer was awarded $1,500 in expenses for needlessly preparing for and attending the hearing.
Applicant awarded full claimed arbitration expenses of $13,369.99 after insurer unreasonably prolonged proceedings.
Following a successful arbitration for statutory accident benefits, the applicant sought her expenses.
The arbitrator applied the criteria under section 12(2) of Ontario Regulation 664 and the principle of global assessment based on reasonableness.
Finding that the insurer unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings by relying on insufficient medical assessments and acting unreasonably, the arbitrator awarded the applicant her full claimed expenses of $13,369.99, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.
Arbitrator removes applicant's counsel from record and dismisses accident benefits application for failure to attend.
The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the applicant failed to attend.
The applicant's counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record, citing a complete breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and an inability to contact the applicant despite numerous attempts.
The arbitrator granted the motion to remove counsel.
Consequently, as the applicant failed to attend the hearing and meet his onus of proof, the arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration.
Application for accident benefits dismissed with costs due to applicant's failure to participate.
After his legal representative was removed from the record, the applicant failed to participate in the proceedings.
The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application and sought its expenses.
The arbitrator dismissed the application without a hearing under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, finding it frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith due to the applicant's failure to participate.
The insurer was awarded expenses of $3,772.71.
Application for arbitration dismissed after applicant failed to attend pre-hearings or respond to notices.
The Applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
After failing to attend a scheduled pre-hearing discussion and failing to maintain contact with her representatives, the Arbitrator issued a notice of intent to dismiss the proceeding.
The Applicant did not respond to the notice, failed to attend the resumed pre-hearing, and did not provide an updated address.
The Arbitrator dismissed the Application for Arbitration as frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.
Motion by applicant's counsel to withdraw from the record granted due to breakdown in solicitor-client relationship.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.
Her legal representatives brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, citing the applicant's failure to respond to communications and attend a pre-hearing.
The arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the representatives had complied with the Dispute Resolution Practice Code and that the breakdown in the relationship made it impossible to obtain the applicant's consent.
Appeal dismissed; action barred due to unexplained two-year delay in serving statement of claim.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for non-compliance with the governing limitation period.
She argued that the action should proceed because the motion judge did not find actual prejudice to the defendants, despite the statement of claim being served more than two years late.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly considered the relevant factors, including prejudice and the complete lack of explanation for the delay by the appellant's solicitor.
