Mr. Justice B.G. MacDougall

Following a jury verdict awarding damages for personal injury arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court addressed entitlement to costs in light of competing Rule 49 settlement offers.

The jury awarded $60,000 in total damages, including $15,000 for general damages and $45,000 for future loss of income or competitive advantage.

The court considered whether prejudgment interest should be notionally applied to the general damages award when comparing the verdict to the defendant’s settlement offer for Rule 49 purposes, particularly given the statutory deduction under the Insurance Act.

The court held that statutory deductions are ignored when determining entitlement to costs and that prejudgment interest should be notionally added to the general damages.

With that calculation, the plaintiff obtained a judgment slightly more favourable than the defendant’s offer and was therefore presumptively entitled to costs.

The applicant spouse sought an extension of time under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act to file an election for equalization of net family property following the death of her husband.

The application was brought after the six‑month limitation period had expired, largely due to delays in obtaining the deceased’s will and financial information from the estate trustee.

The respondent argued there were no apparent grounds for relief because the deceased allegedly had negative net family property.

The court held that conflicting calculations of the estate, questions regarding a mortgage transaction executed without the spouse’s consent, and potential remedies under s. 5(6) of the Act established apparent grounds for relief.

Finding the delay occurred in good faith and that no substantial prejudice resulted, the court granted the extension of time.