Nigel Grant Gilby

The plaintiff, a person under disability due to a catastrophic brain injury from a motor vehicle accident, sought judicial approval of a proposed tort settlement.

The court reviewed the settlement terms, including a $1.2 million payment from the defendant's insurer and the allocation of funds, considering the significant liability risks for the plaintiff (who failed to stop at a stop sign).

The court approved the settlement, finding it reasonable and excellent given the circumstances, and also approved the plaintiff counsel's reduced contingency fee.

Following a contested motion in a personal injury action, the successful plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs totaling approximately $23,798.70.

The defendants argued costs should be limited to $4,000 and payable in the cause due to the ongoing dispute over liability.

The court held that Rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires costs of a contested motion to be fixed and payable within 30 days unless a different order is more just.

Applying the reasonableness principles governing costs awards and considering duplication of counsel and the moderate complexity of the motion, the court reduced the claimed fees and limited recoverable disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $14,494.49 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable within 30 days.

The insured sought a declaration that a full and final release was null and void due to lack of capacity, undue influence, and the insurer's failure to comply with statutory notice requirements.

The motion judge dealt with the capacity and undue influence issues on a Rule 21 motion, which the Court of Appeal found was an error as those issues depended on disputed facts.

However, on the cross-appeal, the insurer conceded based on recent jurisprudence that its failure to comply with the statutory requirements rendered the release null and void.

The cross-appeal was allowed and the appeal was dismissed as moot.