COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: RONALD JAANSOO (Plaintiff (Appellant)) – and –
CANADIAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (Defendant
(Respondent))
BEFORE: FINLAYSON, LABROSSE AND GOUDGE JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Faisal B. Joseph
For the appellant
W. Colin Osterberg
For the respondent
HEARD: February 23, 2000
On appeal from the judgment of McCart J. dated June 16, 1998,
made at London, Ontario.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1It is conceded by the respondent that if the trial judge
required that to be a reasonable expense an expenditure must
confer a significant benefit, he erred. We agree, but we read the
trial judge rather to be saying that given the evidence and the
language of the reports before him, he concluded that the
proposed expenditure would confer no more than an insignificant
benefit. He was not attempting to establish a legal threshold.
2On the evidence before him it was open to him to conclude
that the proposed expenditure was not a reasonable expense. We
note the respondent’s acknowledgement that it is still open to
the appellant to seek to have the respondent provide him with the
T.E.A.C.H. program if he can demonstrate that in the present
circumstances it is a reasonable expense.
3The issue of costs was never argued before the trial judge
and he retired on the day his reasons were issued. In the
circumstances we grant leave to appeal the costs order. Given the
novel point in issue, we think that there should have been no
order as to costs of the trial.
4The appeal is allowed as to costs, but is otherwise
dismissed without costs.
“G.D. Finlayson J.A.”
“J.M. Labrosse J.A.
“S.T. Goudge J.A.”