Stephen Appotive

The defendant Ministry of the Environment moved to strike the plaintiff's negligence claim arising from an oil spill clean-up, arguing it owed no private law duty of care.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that once the Ministry chose to exercise its discretionary powers under the Environmental Protection Act and became involved in the remediation, it was obliged to do so without negligence.

The court held that the pleaded facts established sufficient proximity under the Anns test and that no policy reasons negated a duty of care at the pleadings stage.

Following settlement of a serious personal injury action at the defendant's policy limits, the parties asked the court to fix costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs sought substantially higher costs based in part on a percentage-of-recovery approach, while the defendant argued for a lower figure based on estimated hours and disputed disbursements.

The court held the settlement agreement required a Rule 57 partial indemnity assessment rather than a percentage-of-settlement methodology.

Applying those factors, the court fixed fees at $70,000 and accepted the defendant's position on disbursements in the absence of reply submissions, assessing total costs at $87,075 plus HST.

The applicant sought court assistance to compel financial disclosure from corporations associated with the respondent within the context of a family law arbitration.

The arbitrator had previously ordered disclosure but concluded the respondent had not fully complied and lacked jurisdiction to compel production from non-party corporations.

The court ordered the respondents to produce the information listed in an exhibit and required the applicant to execute a confidentiality agreement covering all disclosed materials.

The court upheld the arbitrator’s direction that the respondent bear the costs of locating and compiling disclosure while the applicant would pay photocopying at the Legal Aid rate.

The applicant was found substantially successful and awarded partial costs of the motion.

The appellant father appealed and the respondent mother cross-appealed the trial judge's orders regarding access, property interests, and costs.

The father did not attend the hearing and advised he no longer wished to be involved.

The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal in part, modifying the access order to be as requested by the 14-year-old child, given fresh evidence that she had not seen her father in three years and did not want access.

The court dismissed the cross-appeal regarding property interests and costs, finding no error in the trial judge's application of resulting trust and partnership principles, nor in the discretionary costs award.

The applicant was severely injured in a 1991 motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits for 156 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing she no longer met the test of being continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of her normal activities.

The arbitrator found that while her physical injuries had healed, she continued to suffer from cognitive deficiencies, dissociative states, and chronic fatigue that severely limited her ability to function independently, maintain her home, or engage in social and parental activities.

The arbitrator concluded she met the post-156 week test and ordered the insurer to pay ongoing weekly and child care benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger on a bus.

She received weekly income benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The applicant sought reinstatement of weekly income benefits and payment for a secretarial course as a rehabilitation expense.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment immediately following the termination of benefits, but that a subsequent brief return to work exacerbated her condition, entitling her to benefits thereafter.

The claim for the cost of the secretarial course was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove it was a reasonable and suitable rehabilitation expense given her physical limitations.