Michael W. Smith

Following a five-day civil trial in which the defendant obtained a complete dismissal of the plaintiff’s action, the defendant sought costs of approximately $62,000 on a full indemnity basis after an unaccepted settlement offer.

The self-represented plaintiff’s submissions focused on challenging the dismissal rather than addressing the costs issue.

The court reaffirmed the general rule that costs follow the event and held that the plaintiff’s self-represented status and financial hardship did not displace that principle.

After considering the relevant factors governing costs, the court awarded a reduced amount.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $45,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable within 90 days if demanded.

The plaintiff brought an action against his automobile insurer alleging breach of contract and bad faith in relation to compensation for damage to his vehicle and loss of its contents following a 2000 collision.

The insurer had paid for the vehicle loss but disputed further amounts and relied on a contractual one‑year limitation period under the Ontario Automobile Policy (O.A.P. 1).

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove a higher value for the vehicle and failed to establish the value or presence of most claimed contents.

Although the court determined that the insurer’s fault assessment should have been lower, resulting in a small additional deductible return, the claim was nonetheless barred by the one‑year contractual limitation period.

Allegations of bad faith and claims for punitive damages were rejected for lack of evidence of high‑handed or reprehensible conduct.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that she suffered a 'catastrophic impairment' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff relied on an application completed by her psychologist and argued the insurer failed to provide proper notice for a further psychiatric assessment.

The court applied the 'full appreciation' test for summary judgment and found the plaintiff's motion record inadequate, lacking sworn evidence from the plaintiff or her experts.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding that a trial was necessary to properly assess the conflicting expert evidence regarding the plaintiff's impairment.