Sanket Ullal

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Carmela and Vincenzo Di Trapani from a costs order made after an 18-day civil jury trial regarding injuries sustained by William “Bill” Pye in a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The trial judge awarded Pye costs of $995,854.50 and prejudgment interest at 3%.

The appellants argued the trial judge failed to scrutinize fees and disbursements, did not apply reasonableness and proportionality, and erred in awarding a higher prejudgment interest rate.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s approach, holding the costs and interest rate were reasonable and supported by the record.

A Hamilton jury awarded the plaintiff over $1 million in damages for serious injuries from a motor vehicle accident.

The jury award exceeded both the plaintiff's and defendants' offers to settle.

This decision addresses the plaintiff's application for costs, prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest.

The court applied Rule 49.10, entitling the plaintiff to partial indemnity costs up to the date of their offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court also exercised its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act to fix prejudgment interest at 3% and post-judgment interest at 7%.

The total award for costs and interest was $1,104,557.50.

Following a trial where the plaintiff's negligence action was dismissed on causation, the successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $60,000.

The court considered the plaintiff's success on the issues of duty of care, breach, and foreseeability, which consumed significant trial time.

The court also factored in the economic disparity between the personal plaintiff and the insurer-backed defendants, who refused to mediate or make a Rule 49 offer.

After deducting the plaintiff's costs thrown away from two trial adjournments and the costs of an expert witness whose testimony would have been unnecessary had the defendants complied with statutory requirements, the court reduced the remaining costs by 50% to reflect the plaintiff's partial success on the issues.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of $13,743.92.

The plaintiff was assaulted by two unknown individuals in the stairwell of a municipal parking garage.

He sued the city and its contracted security company for negligence and breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act, alleging inadequate security measures.

The court found that both defendants owed a duty of care and breached it by failing to conduct threat/risk assessments, install video cameras in stairwells, or implement adequate security patrols.

However, the action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove causation; the assault lasted only 30 seconds, meaning it could not have been prevented even if proper security measures had been in place.