Leanne Rapley

Following dismissal of a personal injury action arising from injuries sustained while attempting to exit a stuck elevator, the successful defendant sought substantial costs after trial.

The court considered Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, settlement offers under Rule 49, the proportionality principle, and the objectives of the Simplified Procedure.

Although the defendant had made settlement offers more favourable than the trial result, the court held that the claimed costs were disproportionate to the modest amount realistically in dispute and the simplified nature of the proceeding.

Taking into account the plaintiff’s limited financial means, the moderate complexity of the case, and the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable for the losing party to pay, the court significantly reduced the requested costs.

Costs were fixed at a reduced amount plus disbursements.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained while attempting to exit a malfunctioning elevator in her condominium building after severe rainfall caused power failures and flooding of elevator pits.

The claim against the condominium corporation had been settled, leaving the elevator maintenance contractor as the remaining defendant.

The plaintiff alleged negligence and occupier’s liability, relying in part on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

The court found that the elevator malfunctions were caused by extraordinary flooding and that the maintenance contractor had responded reasonably and in compliance with applicable standards.

The plaintiff failed to establish any breach of the standard of care or causal link between the contractor’s conduct and her injuries.