Lisa Crystal Pool

Following trial, the court determined entitlement and quantum of costs after the defendant succeeded and the plaintiff failed to respond to the defendant’s bill of costs.

The court considered the presumptive consequences under Rule 49.10 where a party obtains a result as good as or better than a settlement offer, as well as the discretionary factors under Rule 57.01.

While acknowledging the plaintiff’s sympathetic financial circumstances, the court held that sympathy cannot displace the usual costs consequences where the plaintiff was represented by experienced counsel and proceeded despite litigation risks.

The court scrutinized the defendant’s bill of costs and reduced several claimed amounts due to lack of detail and excessive disbursements, including photocopying and expert witness preparation fees.

Costs were fixed with partial indemnity before the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter, subject to reductions.

Costs ruling following a summary judgment motion in an insurance dispute.

The moving party successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing claims for wrongful infliction of mental distress, bad faith, and aggravated, punitive, and exemplary damages totaling $1.2 million, but failed to dismiss the primary claim for breach of contract.

The court held that both parties achieved partial success on the motion.

Considering the divided success and the parties’ written submissions, the court exercised its discretion to make no costs award.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an insured’s claims for breach of contract, intentional infliction of mental distress, bad faith, and aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages arising from the denial of non-earner accident benefits.

The court held there was a genuine issue requiring a trial on whether the insurer’s 2004 denial complied with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, including the notice requirements under s. 32 and related provisions, and therefore whether the limitation period was triggered.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing claims for mental distress, bad faith, and punitive-type damages.

The court found the insurance contract was not a “peace of mind” contract whose breach would reasonably contemplate psychological harm, the alleged mental suffering was insufficient to warrant compensation, and the insurer’s conduct did not amount to bad faith or high‑handed misconduct.