Sabrina L. Seibel

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to various treatment plans for psychological services, occupational therapy, assistive devices, and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were pre-existing and not caused or exacerbated by the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet the "but for" test for causation.

The Tribunal relied on extensive pre-accident medical records and independent medical examinations demonstrating the applicant had a significant history of chronic pain, substance abuse, and psychological impairments that were unaffected by the accident.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of income replacement benefits (IRB) paid to the respondent following a motor vehicle accident, alleging an overpayment after the respondent returned to work.

The respondent disputed the repayment and sought approval for a psychological treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided sufficient notice of repayment and was entitled to a repayment of $1,828.56, plus interest, based on the respondent's employment income during the relevant period.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's claim for the treatment plan, finding insufficient evidence that it was reasonable and necessary, as previous similar plans were not fully utilized and no psychological diagnosis was provided.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge dated January 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $1,195.

The Court of Appeal allowed Her Majesty the Queen's appeal, remitting the case for a new trial due to insufficient reasons from the lower court.

In this costs endorsement, the Crown sought $25,000 in appeal costs, while the respondents requested no costs.

The court awarded no costs for the appeal, citing the regrettable outcome of a new trial and the respondent's limited resources compared to the state.

The costs of the first trial were remitted to the judge hearing the new trial.

The respondent, an inmate in protective custody, was severely assaulted by other inmates.

The trial judge found the Crown liable in negligence for failing to protect him, assessing damages at an agreed $1.5 million.

The Crown appealed, arguing the trial judge erred by finding institution-level liability rather than identifying specific negligent acts by individual employees, as required by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, concluding that the trial judge's reasons were conclusory, failed to properly articulate the legal test for Crown liability, and were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

This ruling addresses the issue of costs following a nine-day trial where Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario was found liable to the plaintiffs, with Paul Bruno found 15% contributorily negligent.

The plaintiffs sought $407,074.81 in costs and disbursements, while the defendant proposed $166,365.99.

The court determined partial indemnity rates for counsel, made specific reductions for time spent on claims against dismissed defendants, resolved prior interlocutory motions, and travel time.

The court fixed fees at $210,900.00 plus HST, and disbursements at $105,000.00, for a total award of $343,317.00.

The court declined to reduce costs due to contributory negligence, finding the plaintiff's contribution minimal and not significantly increasing litigation costs or affecting settlement chances.

The defendants, Lauren Stephen (Son) and Brenda Stephen (Mother), brought separate motions for summary judgment to dismiss claims against them arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The Son, who caused the collision, argued he was not civilly liable due to a mental disorder at the time.

The Mother argued she was not vicariously liable as the Son lacked her consent to possess her vehicle, and denied negligence in her supervision or control of the vehicle keys.

The court granted both motions, finding the Son met the Buckley test for mental illness in negligence, and the Mother was neither vicariously liable nor negligent, as she did not give consent and could not have foreseen the Son's actions.

The plaintiffs brought a negligence action arising from a brutal assault on a vulnerable inmate in a provincial detention centre protective custody unit.

The court held that correctional staff fell below the standard of care by permitting three aggressive inmates with a known history of assaults and acting in concert to remain housed together, and by failing to make compatibility inquiries before placing the plaintiff in the unit.

Applying a but-for causation analysis, the court found the assault would not have occurred absent those failures.

The plaintiff was found contributorily negligent for not alerting staff upon seeing an inmate with whom he had prior conflict, and fault was apportioned at 15 percent against the plaintiff.

Liability was found against the Ministry, with damages already agreed and remaining issues deferred.

This judgment addresses the determination of "costs thrown away" following the plaintiffs' successful request for a trial adjournment.

The court defined "costs thrown away" as wasted trial preparation expenses that would need to be repeated.

It applied an "intuitive" discount to the defendants' claimed costs, distinguishing between truly wasted efforts and preparation that would retain value for a future trial.

The court also deferred the assessment of costs related to the adjournment motion itself until after the trial, when the full context of disclosure issues would be clearer.

The defendants were awarded $6,225.33 in costs thrown away.

The plaintiff brought a motion to restore his wrongful arrest and negligent investigation action to the trial list after it was struck due to his lack of counsel.

The court found that because there was no impending dismissal under the amended Rule 48.14, the strict Nissar test did not apply.

The court concluded the action was ready for trial, the delay was reasonably explained by the plaintiff's efforts to retain new counsel, and the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The motion was granted and costs of $3,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.