Patrick Walter O'Donoghue Brown

This costs endorsement arises from a pedestrian motor vehicle accident case where the jury found no negligence against the defendant driver, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found that Rule 49.10 did not apply as the plaintiff obtained no judgment.

The court exercised its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure to decline awarding costs against the principal plaintiff, Jasmine Jarvis, citing the tragic circumstances of her severe traumatic brain injury, her limited ability to pay, and procedural unfairness during the trial where irrelevant character evidence was improperly introduced.

No costs were awarded against the Family Law Act claimants (grandparents) due to their derivative claims and limited financial means.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he was not catastrophically impaired under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the French version of the Schedule, by reading a temporal requirement into the word 'with', and by exceeding its jurisdiction in addressing absurd results.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the French version argument was a new issue that could not be raised on reconsideration, the temporal interpretation was legally sound, and the comments on absurd results were obiter.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he was not catastrophically impaired under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the French version of the Schedule, by creating a temporal requirement for positive imaging, and by exceeding its jurisdiction in addressing absurd results.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the French version argument was not raised at the hearing and could not be introduced as a new argument, the temporal interpretation was legally sound, and the comments regarding absurd results were obiter.

The defendants in civil limitation actions brought motions to compel the Ontario Provincial Police and Public Prosecution Service of Canada to produce a Crown brief relating to a fatal boating accident prior to the conclusion of an ongoing criminal trial.

The Court found the documents relevant but declined to order production, citing prematurity, public interest in the integrity of the criminal prosecution, and the respondents' undertaking to produce the brief after the trial.

The Court also refused to compel the OPP to designate an officer for discovery, noting the provincial Crown's statutory immunity.

The 13-year-old applicant was struck by a vehicle and sustained a fractured femur and a traumatic brain injury.

He applied for a catastrophic impairment designation under section 3.1(1) 5.i of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule based on a positive SPECT scan conducted months after his hospital discharge.

The Tribunal held that the word 'with' in the provision requires the positive finding of intracranial pathology to occur while the insured is admitted on an in-patient basis.

Because the applicant's positive scan occurred months later, he did not meet the statutory criteria for catastrophic impairment.

Appeal of summary judgment dismissal in a negligence action arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff's estate and family sued social hosts for damages, alleging the hosts owed a duty of care when the intoxicated guest drove home and subsequently drove his children and their babysitter, resulting in a fatal collision.

The motion judge dismissed the claims, finding no duty of care existed and alternatively that any duty ended when the guest arrived home safely.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding genuine issues of fact regarding foreseeability and proximity that required trial, and rejecting the proposition that a social host's duty of care automatically expires upon an intoxicated guest's safe arrival home.

Following dismissal of a Rule 21 motion to strike the statement of claim for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, the successful plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs.

The responding party argued the requested amount was excessive given the straightforward nature of the pleadings motion, overlapping work among multiple lawyers and students, and hourly rates exceeding recommended partial indemnity guidelines.

The court accepted that the motion was significant and involved novel legal issues but found the plaintiffs had spent excessive time and improperly included hours related to amending the claim.

Applying principles of fairness and reasonableness in fixing costs, the court reduced the requested amount.

A lump sum costs award was granted to the successful plaintiffs.

The applicant and her counsel failed to attend a scheduled resumption of a pre-hearing discussion regarding statutory accident benefits.

The applicant's counsel had decided attendance was unnecessary but failed to notify the Commission or the insurer's counsel, resulting in wasted preparation time.

The arbitrator found this conduct tended to prolong, obstruct, or hinder the proceeding under s. 12(2) of O. Reg. 664.

The applicant was ordered to pay $300 to the insurer forthwith for costs thrown away.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an action on summary judgment arising from alleged childhood abuse following a job referral through a student employment office.

The court held that the appellant's affidavit evidence did not raise a genuine issue for trial that the federal respondent owed or breached a duty to protect against an objectively unreasonable risk of harm based on the employer's request for under-16 male candidates.

Although discoverability and limitation issues were argued, the majority held the appeal failed on the negligence issue alone and also stated the negligence, assault, and battery claims were statute barred under the applicable federal and provincial provisions.

A dissent would have found triable issues on both negligence and discoverability and would have set aside the summary judgment.