Riley McIntyre

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following its August 15, 2024 decision.

The parties resolved the costs of the appeal and underlying prejudgment interest motions by consent.

The respondent agreed to pay the appellants an all-inclusive amount of $60,000 for appeal and motion costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's prejudgment interest order, arguing errors in applying statutory rates and discretion under the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by misapplying the presumptive 5% rate for non-pecuniary damages, misconstruing the purpose of non-pecuniary damages, and misinterpreting "market interest rates" by equating them with statutory prejudgment rates.

The trial judge also improperly rejected evidence of the insurer's and appellants' actual investment returns.

The appeal was allowed, and the prejudgment interest rate for both non-pecuniary and past pecuniary damages was increased to 8.46%.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action for delay by a motion judge, who had also dismissed their motion to extend the timetable.

The action, commenced in 2014, faced significant delays, primarily due to the appellants' failure to obtain written consent from the City of Ottawa (to whom the action was subrogated under the WSIA) for several years.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the appellants failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay and did not rebut the presumption of prejudice to the respondents, given the lack of progress in the litigation.

The plaintiff brought a motion on the eve of trial to remove the defendant's lead counsel of record, alleging that the defence lawyer improperly used Summonses to Witness to obtain pre-trial disclosure of confidential medical records.

The plaintiff argued that the cover letters accompanying the summonses coerced witnesses into providing documents before trial to avoid attending court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a reasonably informed member of the public, reading the summons and cover letter as a whole, would not interpret them as an attempt to obtain improper pre-trial discovery.

The plaintiff's alternative request to quash the summonses was reserved to the trial judge.

The plaintiff, Paramjit Singh, and the defendant, Shoppers Home Health Care (Ontario) Inc., each sought costs following a four-week jury trial.

The jury found Shoppers liable for Mr. Singh's injuries but also found Mr. Singh 75% contributorily negligent, resulting in a total award of approximately $73,000, which was less favorable than Shoppers' Rule 49.10 settlement offer of $100,000.

The court determined that Shoppers' global offer to multiple plaintiffs (Mr. Singh and his family with FLA claims) was valid and triggered Rule 49.10 cost consequences.

The court then assessed Mr. Singh's partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and Shoppers' partial indemnity costs from that date to the end of trial, considering factors under Rule 57.01.

Despite Mr. Singh's success on liability, his low recovery and high contributory negligence meant the Rule 49.10 offer was beaten.

The court ultimately concluded that the allowable costs for both parties were effectively equivalent ($131,633 for Mr. Singh and $128,500-$138,500 for Shoppers) and declined to order costs payable by either party.