Michael Grivich

The appellant appealed a costs award of $300,000 made by the trial judge following a motor vehicle accident case.

The respondent was struck by a vehicle driven by the appellant while crossing a pedestrian crossing.

After a three-week jury trial, the jury awarded the respondent $24,166 in general damages and $26,000 in special damages for past income loss, with a net recovery of $16,160.50 after accounting for contributory negligence and statutory deductibles.

The trial judge awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the respondent was more successful at trial.

The appellant argued the costs award was wholly disproportionate to the modest recovery and that the trial judge erred in finding the respondent was more successful.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the costs award.

The defendant, Mohammed Ghandehari, brought a motion for security for costs and for an order requiring the plaintiff, Gobinath Papiah, to attend an in-person defence medical examination in Toronto, with the plaintiff to pay his own travel and accommodation expenses.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs due to the defendant's delay in bringing the motion and the fact that India is a reciprocating jurisdiction for costs orders.

The court ordered the in-person medical examination but required the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s reasonable costs of attending.

The plaintiff was awarded $1,500 in costs for the motion.

The plaintiff sought substantial costs following a jury trial where she was awarded modest damages for a motor vehicle accident, despite claiming over $1,000,000.

The defendant had made no monetary offer to settle prior to trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff $300,000 in costs, disbursements, and HST, reducing the plaintiff's requested amount due to proportionality and excessive counsel.

The judge criticized the defendant's "hardball" litigation strategy of offering zero, finding it unreasonable and wasteful of court resources, and emphasized that such conduct necessitated the trial.

This ruling addresses motions brought by both the plaintiff and the defendant during a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff moved to strike a jury question regarding contributory negligence, arguing a lack of reasonable evidence.

The defendant moved to strike or amend jury questions concerning past and future income loss, asserting insufficient particularization and speculative nature.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that there was reasonable evidence to allow all questions to proceed to the jury.

The judge determined that the jury could reasonably infer contributory negligence from the plaintiff's testimony and that sufficient evidence, including actuarial testimony and employment history, supported the income loss claims, even without specific retirement dates or exhaustive employment scenarios.