4 total
Plaintiffs awarded partial indemnity costs without a reduction for their 25% contributory negligence.
The plaintiffs sought costs following a 22-day product liability trial where the jury awarded them $1,157,850 in damages but found the plaintiff 25% contributorily negligent.
The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the plaintiffs' request for substantial indemnity costs and a cost premium.
The court also declined the defendants' request to reduce the costs award by 25% to reflect the contributory negligence finding, noting that the plaintiff's negligence did not materially affect the prospects for settlement.
The plaintiffs were awarded $387,140 in fees, plus HST and disbursements.
Request to charge jury on spoliation denied as there was no evidence of intentional destruction to affect litigation.
During a product liability jury trial, the defendants requested that the jury be charged on the doctrine of spoliation because the plaintiffs discarded the broken pieces of the cookware that allegedly caused the injury.
The court declined to charge the jury on spoliation, finding no evidence that the plaintiffs intentionally destroyed the evidence to affect ongoing or contemplated litigation.
The plaintiffs discarded the broken pieces shortly after the accident without contemplating a lawsuit.
Appeal of class counsel fee approval dismissed; $6.3 million fee on $40 million settlement upheld.
Class counsel appealed an order fixing their fees at $6.3 million plus GST, which was approximately half the amount agreed upon in their contingency fee agreements.
The motion judge had reduced the base fee by 25% and applied a multiplier of 2.6, finding the requested $12 million fee excessive in relation to the $40 million settlement recovery.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge applied the proper test, considered all relevant factors, and made no palpable and overriding error in determining a fair and reasonable fee.
Dependants' relief appeal dismissed; moral obligations to second spouse properly balanced against disabled child's needs.
The appellants, the first wife and two adult children of the deceased, appealed a dependants' relief order under the Succession Law Reform Act.
The deceased's son suffered from a progressively debilitating disease requiring significant future care.
The application judge awarded a $250,000 lump sum for the children's support and limited child support arrears to the date of death, balancing the son's needs against the deceased's moral obligations to his second spouse.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that moral considerations are relevant to dependants' relief applications in Ontario and finding no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion regarding support, arrears, or costs.
