Sam Sandhu

The plaintiff brought two motions: (1) to add LEA Consulting Ltd. as a defendant, which proceeded with consent; and (2) to compel the defendant, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, represented by the Minister of Transportation, to answer undertakings and re-attend for continuation of oral examination for discovery at their own expense.

The defendant failed to disclose the involvement of LEA Consulting Ltd., an onsite contract administrator, and relevant documents prior to discovery.

The court found that this failure undermined the purpose and utility of the discovery and granted the motion to compel re-attendance at the defendant's expense.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff in the amount of $4,243.15.

The applicant father brought a motion for the return of the four-year-old child from Alberta to Ontario, following the respondent mother's unilateral relocation and breach of a prior undertaking to return the child to Ontario.

The court had previously confirmed jurisdiction in Ontario.

The mother's evidence regarding the child's safety and a new status quo was found to be contradictory and insufficient, as her actions constituted extreme self-help remedies.

The court emphasized that self-help would not be rewarded and that the child's best interests, including maintaining a relationship with both parents, necessitated the child's return to Ontario.

The motion for the child's return was granted, with specific orders for transfer of care and future parenting arrangements.

This costs endorsement followed a four-week jury trial where the plaintiffs received a net award of $191,228.65.

The defendant's pre-trial offer of $250,000 to settle all claims was found to attract Rule 49.10 cost consequences, despite being a lump sum and inseverable offer to multiple plaintiffs, due to the application of s. 62(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court adjusted the defendant's claimed costs downward, particularly for internal counsel's estimated time, to ensure indemnity rather than a windfall.

The plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs up to the offer date, and the defendant from that date forward.

A net payment of $21,923.17 in costs was ordered from the defendant to the plaintiffs.

Prejudgment interest on non-pecuniary damages was ordered to run until the end of the trial.

This endorsement concerns the determination of costs following a settlement of a tort action for $200,000.

The plaintiff sought $190,605.74 in costs, including fees for accident benefit arbitration.

The court fixed costs at $145,605.75, reducing the tort claim costs due to proportionality and allowing a portion of accident benefit legal costs to be recovered from the tort defendant, as the defendant benefited from the plaintiff's efforts in securing those benefits.

The court also rejected the defendant's argument to limit costs based on an earlier Rule 49 offer, finding the settlement agreement for costs was unrestricted.

The defendant brought an urgent motion to compel the plaintiff to attend two independent medical examinations (physiatry and psychological) shortly before trial.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was brought too late.

The court granted the request for the physiatry examination, finding that the plaintiff's late service of a physiatry expert report constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting a responding report.

However, the court dismissed the request for a psychological examination, as the plaintiff had not served a psychological expert report and the defendant had long been aware of the psychological claims.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.