Robert H. Rogers

The court apportioned costs between the defendants following a 39-day trial where the plaintiffs were awarded approximately $12 million in damages.

The Jantzi defendants were found 80% at fault for a motor vehicle accident, and All Star Tap & Grill 20% at fault for over-serving alcohol, with the plaintiff Wesley Hummel 25% contributorily negligent.

The Jantzi defendants argued All Star should bear 80% of post-offer costs due to their refusal to settle, while All Star argued costs should follow the trial's liability apportionment (75% Jantzi, 25% All Star after contributory negligence).

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 and Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, including offers to settle and policy limits.

Ultimately, the court ordered the Jantzi defendants to pay one-third of the plaintiffs' costs and All Star Tap & Grill to pay two-thirds, based on their respective insurance policy limits ($1 million for Jantzi, $2 million for All Star).

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing his application for judicial review of a Director Delegate's decision.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Divisional Court's application of the appropriate standard of review.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Following a trial and appeal regarding an employment dispute, the court determined the costs of the trial.

The defendant, who was successful on her counterclaim, sought costs based on an offer to settle.

The court found the offer to settle complied with Rule 49 and that the judgment was more favourable than the offer.

Finding the defendant's claimed costs of over $71,000 to be disproportionately high, the court fixed costs at $55,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following settlement of personal injury claims arising from a motor vehicle–pedestrian collision, a defendant sought an order apportioning the plaintiffs’ party-and-party costs between two groups of defendants.

The moving party argued the other defendants should bear a greater share because its insurer’s contribution enabled settlement and protected the others from personal exposure.

The responding parties argued that insurance considerations were irrelevant and proposed equal contribution.

The court held that it was unnecessary to determine whether insurance was a relevant factor and instead relied on the pleadings and the Negligence Act principle that where relative fault cannot be determined, parties are deemed equally at fault.

Costs were therefore apportioned equally between the taxi defendants collectively and the other defendants.