Michael Kennedy

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was awarded $677,143, the court determined the costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs based on reconstructed dockets due to a contingency fee agreement, including costs for a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) hearing regarding statutory accident benefits.

The court awarded $302,974.37 in total costs, allowing only a portion of the LAT hearing fees that constituted trial preparation for the tort action, and deducting certain disbursements as standard office overhead.

Following a 14-day trial where the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim was dismissed, the successful defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff argued that his impecuniosity, relying on social assistance, should insulate him from an adverse costs award.

The court rejected this argument, noting the plaintiff had access to after-the-event insurance and that impecuniosity rarely prevents a costs award.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs, reducing the claimed fees and disbursements to an amount reasonable for an unsuccessful litigant to pay, fixing total costs at $158,000.

Laurentian University of Sudbury applied for an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to a severe liquidity crisis and insolvency.

The court found that the university, a not-for-profit corporation, qualifies as a debtor company under the CCAA.

The court granted the Initial Order, which included a stay of proceedings, authorization for pre-filing and post-filing payments to students, an Administration Charge, and a Directors' Charge.

The court also granted a sealing order for confidential correspondence with the Ministry to protect the restructuring efforts.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim.

The collision occurred when the plaintiff attempted an improper left turn from a through lane, striking the defendant's vehicle which was proceeding lawfully in the designated left-turn lane.

Applying the enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the defendant could not have reasonably avoided the collision.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The defendant insurer moved under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order that a simplified procedure action against the insurer and a separate tort action arising from the same motor vehicle accident be tried together or sequentially.

Although both proceedings arose from the same collision and involved overlapping liability issues, the court held that consolidation was not appropriate.

The insurance action involved a discrete fault determination issue and was ready for trial, while the tort action was significantly more complex and at an early procedural stage.

The court concluded that trying the actions together would cause delay and offer little efficiency benefit.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.