Lou Ferro

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.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including caregiver and non-earner benefits, from her insurer.

The insurer terminated caregiver benefits after 104 weeks, prompting the plaintiff to sue for the benefits, as well as damages for bad faith and mental distress.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the claim was statute-barred because it was commenced more than two years after the insurer's clear refusal to pay.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the claim were not statute-barred, the plaintiff failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, largely due to pre-existing conditions and a lack of objective medical evidence.

The claims for bad faith and mental distress were also dismissed as the insurer's conduct was reasonable and there was insufficient evidence of compensable distress.

Following a jury trial in a personal injury action, the jury awarded the plaintiff damages for loss of competitive advantage but no non‑pecuniary damages or past income loss.

The court subsequently determined that the plaintiff failed to meet the statutory threshold and dismissed the action.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs relying on a pre‑trial offer to settle and alleged misconduct in pursuing the claim.

The court held that elevated costs require a clear finding of reprehensible or egregious conduct, which had not been established.

Costs were therefore fixed on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and claimed damages for chronic pain and psychological impairments.

Following a nine-day jury trial, the defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory requirement of a permanent serious impairment under the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed extensive medical evidence and found the plaintiff lacked credibility, having concealed her pre-accident medical history and exaggerated her symptoms.

The court concluded the plaintiff failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that her injuries were permanent, noting she had voluntarily stopped treatment and had significant pre-existing conditions.

The defendant's motion was granted and the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s $4.5 million action alleging that corporate sponsors of a soccer association owed a duty to ensure adequate insurance coverage for players, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs following a Rule 21 motion that terminated the claim at an early stage.

The court held that while the defendants were entitled to significant costs, the hours claimed by counsel were excessive and involved duplication of work.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the requested amounts and fixed reasonable costs payable to the successful defendants.

Following the dismissal of an action against an insurer on summary judgment, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs had advanced a novel negligence claim alleging the insurer owed a duty of care to ensure adequate insurance coverage for a sports association member who became quadriplegic while playing soccer.

After the action against the insurer was dismissed, the insurer sought costs.

Applying the factors in rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the amounts claimed due to duplication of effort and excessive time entries but held that the successful defendant was entitled to partial indemnity costs.

Following a successful motion for security for costs, the defendant sought an award of costs for the motion on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff did not dispute entitlement but argued the defendant achieved only partial success, claimed excessive costs, and requested that any award be in the cause rather than payable immediately.

The court held the moving party was substantially successful and rejected arguments that the award should be reduced for limited success.

While the amount claimed exceeded what would normally be expected for such a motion, the court accepted that additional work caused by late filings, expedited cross-examinations, and the complexity of the underlying action justified a higher award, subject to reduction for duplication of effort.

Costs were fixed and ordered payable within 30 days pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants, corporate sponsors of a soccer organization, brought a motion under rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a negligence claim arising from a catastrophic soccer injury.

The plaintiff alleged the sponsors had a duty of care to ensure that the organization maintained adequate insurance coverage for players.

The court held that mere financial sponsorship and advertising relationships do not create a proximate relationship giving rise to a duty of care to participants.

The pleadings failed to establish reliance, proximity, or control over the event or insurance arrangements.

The statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims alleging that it negligently provided inadequate insurance coverage for members of a sports association.

The plaintiffs argued that the insurer owed a duty to advise that the policy limits were insufficient and should have refused to offer the policy.

The court held that where an experienced broker represents the insured, the insurer owes no direct advisory duty to the insured beyond issuing the policy requested through the broker.

As the evidentiary record showed no direct advisory relationship and the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting the alleged duty, there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for security for costs against a corporate plaintiff in bankruptcy alleging a conspiracy by insurers to destroy its accident-benefits clinic business.

The court considered the framework under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including whether the plaintiff established impecuniosity, whether the claim had a good chance of success, and whether delay justified refusing the order.

The court found the plaintiff failed to demonstrate genuine efforts to obtain funding from creditors or shareholders and therefore did not establish impecuniosity.

The plaintiff also failed to demonstrate a good chance of success on the evidence presented, and the defendant had not delayed unreasonably in bringing the motion.

Security for costs was ordered in staged amounts.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully achieving a dismissal of the action at the opening of trial.

The defendants had made three offers to settle, the last being a valid, unexpired Rule 49 offer.

The plaintiff did not file any responding costs submissions.

The court awarded the defendants substantial indemnity costs from the date of their final offer, and partial indemnity costs for the steps taken prior to that offer, resulting in a total costs award of $39,298.11 plus GST.