Rasha Mohamed Said El-Tawil

This is a costs endorsement for three inter-related appeals (C66633, C64430, and C64479).

The parties resolved costs for appeal C64479.

For appeals C64430 and C66633, the Court found that success was mixed, and therefore, there would be no order as to costs for those appeals.

This is an appeal from a jury trial in a personal injury case arising from a single-vehicle crash.

The plaintiffs (Tuffnail family) were injured, and liability was apportioned among the driver (Meekes), the host (Bolton), the bartender (Coulthard), and the plaintiff (Tuffnail).

Multiple parties appealed the post-verdict rulings.

The Court of Appeal found that Coulthard was "jointly liable" with Meekes for the purposes of OPCF 44R, allowing State Farm to deduct Coulthard's insurance limits, thereby reducing State Farm's payout to the Tuffnails.

The court clarified that State Farm must share subrogation recoveries with the Tuffnails on a pro rata basis until the Tuffnails receive full indemnification under the judgment, correcting the trial judge's order that limited it to the OPCF 44R endorsement.

The court upheld the trial judge's decision on Coulthard's several liability to Bolton, rejecting the argument for reapportionment of fault without Meekes.

The court found the trial judge erred in awarding prejudgment interest higher than the bank rate, reducing it to 1.3% as market rates did not justify a higher rate and the "expectation" factor was inappropriate.

Finally, the court upheld the denial of Coulthard's request to amend pleadings to add a limitation defence post-verdict due to non-compensable prejudice.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert toxicological opinion evidence regarding blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels and signs of intoxication during a trial.

The expert was deemed qualified to testify on BAC levels and their physiological effects based on assumptions.

However, the court excluded the expert's opinion on whether an individual exhibited signs of intoxication or others' ability to detect impairment, holding that these are matters of common knowledge for a jury and do not require expert testimony.

The court also cautioned against experts developing hypotheses and sifting through evidence to support them.

At the opening of trial, the plaintiffs moved to amend their statement of claim to plead vicarious liability against the defendant Thomas Bolton for the negligence of the third party, Steve Coulthard.

The Bolton Estate resisted, arguing prejudice due to Mr. Bolton's death and the lateness of the amendment.

The court permitted the amendment, finding it did not raise a new cause of action but rather attached a legal label to existing facts, consistent with Rule 26.01, and that the defence would have understood the basis of liability.

This personal injury action involved a motion by the plaintiffs to appoint a litigation guardian for Elisabeth Reddecopp, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident and found to lack capacity to instruct counsel.

The defendants brought a cross-motion seeking a further capacity assessment, cross-examination of the initial assessor, and other relief.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, appointing Elisabeth's father, Heinrich, as litigation guardian, finding him presumptively appropriate and without an adverse interest that would preclude his appointment.

The court dismissed the defendants' cross-motion, ruling it lacked jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 to order a further capacity assessment, and that there was no basis to compel cross-examination of the initial assessor or order a second assessment given its comprehensiveness and lack of bias.