Sarah E. Russell

Following substantial success on two applications and one motion brought by the insurer, the insureds sought partial indemnity costs of $64,222.72.

The insurer argued the amount was unreasonable and that the parties should bear their own costs or the amount should be significantly reduced.

The court found the issues were important and novel, justifying the insurer's pursuit of them, but held the insureds' claimed costs were excessive.

Applying principles of fairness, proportionality, and reasonableness, the court fixed the insureds' partial indemnity costs at $30,000 for fees, plus disbursements and costs of the submissions, for a total of $42,381.97.

Following a tornado that destroyed or damaged their homes, the insureds and their insurer, Desjardins, disagreed on the value of the losses.

Desjardins brought applications and a motion to stay the insureds' bad faith action pending the completion of the statutory appraisal process.

The court held that an insured's lawyer may act as their appraiser, as appraisers are advocates and need not be impartial, unlike the umpire.

The court also held that insureds may wait to submit a proof of loss based on actual repair costs rather than estimates, provided they act diligently.

The motion to stay the bad faith action was dismissed, as the insurer would suffer no prejudice from parallel proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim to substitute a named defendant for a 'Jane Doe' following a motor vehicle accident.

The proposed defendant initially opposed the motion but ultimately consented.

The only issue remaining was costs.

The proposed defendant argued the plaintiffs should pay costs as they were granted an indulgence.

The court rejected this, finding the plaintiffs acted with diligence.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs fixed at $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable in the cause, noting it was reasonable for the proposed defendant to initially oppose the motion.

During jury deliberations in a motor vehicle personal injury trial, the jury foreman conducted internet research and found the Fault Determination Rules under the Insurance Act.

The jury asked a question about the regulation, prompting the trial judge to give a correcting charge instructing them to disregard it.

The jury subsequently returned a verdict finding the plaintiff 73% contributorily negligent.

The plaintiffs moved for a mistrial, arguing the jury was contaminated and failed to follow the correcting charge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the correcting charge was sufficient, the jury's prompt disclosure of the research indicated a willingness to follow instructions, and the verdict was supported by the evidence.