Marc Sauvé

The plaintiffs brought a civil action in battery arising from a professional wrestling match in which the defendant intentionally cut the plaintiff with a razor blade immediately after cutting himself.

The court found that the defendant, who had Hepatitis‑C, transmitted the virus to the plaintiff through blood‑to‑blood contact.

As a result, the plaintiff lost a professional wrestling contract with a major wrestling organization and underwent painful medical treatments before ultimately being cured.

The court held the defendant liable for battery and awarded damages for pain and suffering, past income loss, and significant future income loss based on the lost opportunity to pursue a professional wrestling career.

Family members also received damages under the Family Law Act for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

The moving party law firm brought a motion seeking to transfer the taxation of costs to Ottawa.

The court considered factors including where the legal work was performed, the residence of most witnesses, and the convenience and efficiency of conducting the taxation before bilingual certified assessors in Ottawa.

The court found that most relevant events and witnesses were located in Ottawa and that the law firm had suffered the alleged financial prejudice there.

Balancing these factors, the court held that transferring the taxation proceeding from London to Ottawa was in the interests of justice.

The responding parties were ordered to pay costs of the motion.

Following a multi‑day civil trial involving contractual disputes and a counterclaim, the successful defendants sought costs relying on multiple settlement offers made under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff argued the result was mixed and that each party should bear its own costs, emphasizing that the defendants’ counterclaim was ultimately found to be prescribed.

The court reviewed the governing costs factors under Rule 57 and the jurisprudence concerning settlement offers and proportionality.

The court held the defendants were the successful parties and that a reasonable settlement offer should have been accepted.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded against the plaintiff.