Robert Besunder

Following dismissal of an application alleging privacy breaches and misrepresentations relating to the transfer of insurance assets and insured persons’ information, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The unsuccessful applicant argued that no costs should be awarded because the matter raised issues of public interest and the law regarding enforcement of privacy rights was uncertain.

The court rejected those submissions, noting the seriousness of the allegations and the prior finding that the proceeding constituted an abuse of process.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the respondents’ reduced claim for costs, the court exercised its discretion to award a fixed amount.

Costs were ordered payable to the respondents.

Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle personal injury action where the plaintiff recovered no damages and the action was dismissed, the court determined the defendants’ entitlement to costs.

The defendants sought significant costs awards, including substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted settlement offer.

The court held that Rule 49.10 did not apply because the plaintiff obtained no judgment.

Applying s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court confirmed that successful parties are generally entitled to costs but emphasized that awards must be fair and reasonable.

The requested amounts were found excessive, and the court fixed reduced partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff to each defendant.

The moving parties (insurers) brought a motion to strike out an application seeking declaratory relief regarding alleged breaches of privacy and insurance legislation.

The responding party had commenced multiple other proceedings, including a tort claim, an accident benefits claim, and complaints to regulatory bodies.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the application was an abuse of process because declaratory relief would serve no practical purpose and the governing statutes provided their own mandatory procedures for resolving the disputes.

The court issued a consent order setting the timetable for the parties to deliver their costs submissions.