Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-00439706-0000 DATE: 20230103 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Mary Terencia Antony, Plaintiff AND: Ratnakumar Kumarasamy and Reddiar Ragunath Bakthavachalu, Defendants AND: The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, added by orders pursuant to Section 258(14) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended, Third Parties
BEFORE: Justice A.P. Ramsay
COUNSEL: David S. Wilson, for the Plaintiff Bruce Chambers, Third Party Defendants
HEARD: January 3, 2023 In Writing
Supplementary Endorsement
1I received an email dated December 15, 2022, from Mr. Wilson, copied to Mr. Chambers identifying four issues to be dealt with and/or reconsidered. In the result, these are supplementary reasons to my decision dated December 12, 2022.
2The partial indemnity costs of $84,075.00 awarded to the plaintiff is net of HST, and HST is to follow. To be clear, the plaintiff is entitled to HST on the partial indemnity costs.
3The decision of December 12, 2022, is varied, and the amount of the disbursements allowed, as agreed to by the parties, is $52,599.13. The plaintiff is entitled to HST on the disbursements.
4If the parties are unable to agree on costs, the plaintiff shall submit Costs Submissions, no more than three pages, to Ms. Diamante at Polly.Diamante@ontario.ca within 20 days of the release of these supplementary Reasons.
5As for my short form reference to the factum, all submissions were considered in making a determination as to whether it was appropriate, in the circumstances, for the defendant (read statutory third party), to pay any portion of the plaintiff’s legal fees in pursuing her accident benefits. A well-established body of jurisprudence endorse the notion that the accident benefit scheme is designed to pay eligible claims efficiently, and where there is a dispute, provide for a dispute resolution process that is speedy and at low costs to the claimant/insured. To be clear, the court considered the entirety of the evidence filed by both parties, oral submissions, the factum of each party, and the authorities submitted by the parties in determining whether the defendant ought to bear any of the costs of the plaintiff’s recovery of her accident benefits, and particular, whether the plaintiff has satisfied the court that she met the guidelines outlined by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Cadieux v. Cloutier, 2018 ONCA 903, at para. 130, and Cadieux v. Cloutier, 2019 ONCA 241, at para 11 wherein that Court stated:
At para. 130 of this court’s reasons, we noted that “the tort defendant should not be required to pay the costs of the plaintiff’s pursuit of SABs as a general principle or as a matter of course.” We set out, at para 132, a number of factors that a trial judge might consider in determining whether to award such costs and, if so, the amount to be included. We invited the parties to make submissions as to how these factors applied on the facts of this case.
6No reconsideration is required.
A.P. Ramsay J.
Date: January 3, 2023