3 total
Costs awarded against appellant for unreasonable conduct in filing an appeal devoid of planning merits.
The applicants sought full indemnity costs against the appellant after the appellant's appeal of a consent application was dismissed without a hearing.
The Tribunal found the appellant's conduct in filing an appeal devoid of a genuine land use planning issue, while ignoring a fully adjudicated boundary line establishing his barn's encroachment, to be clearly unreasonable and in bad faith.
The Tribunal awarded partial indemnity costs of $1,500 to the applicants.
Costs reduced to reflect proportionality in estate litigation.
This was a costs endorsement following a prior decision on trustee compensation in an estate matter.
The court considered competing costs requests from an objector, a charitable beneficiary, and the solicitor for the estate trustee.
Applying proportionality principles drawn from appellate and estate costs authorities, the court declined to award the full amounts sought and reduced the claims where the work performed did not justify full recovery.
Fixed costs were awarded to the objector, the charitable beneficiary, the estate trustee's solicitor, and another participant.
Progressive held liable for accident benefits; short-term income benefits awarded based on pre-accident job offer.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for accident benefits.
A priority dispute arose between the insurer of the vehicle he was in (State Farm) and his brother's insurer (Progressive).
The arbitrator found the applicant was principally dependent on his brother for financial support, making Progressive liable.
The applicant also claimed weekly income benefits based on a job offer made shortly before the accident.
The arbitrator accepted that a legitimate offer of employment existed but found the applicant's accident-related disability resolved by mid-June 1991.
Weekly income benefits were awarded for that limited period, along with arbitration expenses.
