Sean Francis Oostdyk

Following trial, the court determined entitlement and quantum of costs after the defendant succeeded and the plaintiff failed to respond to the defendant’s bill of costs.

The court considered the presumptive consequences under Rule 49.10 where a party obtains a result as good as or better than a settlement offer, as well as the discretionary factors under Rule 57.01.

While acknowledging the plaintiff’s sympathetic financial circumstances, the court held that sympathy cannot displace the usual costs consequences where the plaintiff was represented by experienced counsel and proceeded despite litigation risks.

The court scrutinized the defendant’s bill of costs and reduced several claimed amounts due to lack of detail and excessive disbursements, including photocopying and expert witness preparation fees.

Costs were fixed with partial indemnity before the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter, subject to reductions.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff’s claim for non-earner accident benefits was statute‑barred.

The insurer had denied the benefit in July 2006, but the insured commenced mediation in 2010 and issued a statement of claim in 2011.

The court held that the two‑year limitation period under the Insurance Act and Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule runs from the insurer’s refusal to pay the benefit, even if the reason given later proves legally incorrect.

The plaintiff also failed to commence the court proceeding within the additional 90‑day period following the mediator’s report.

The action was therefore barred by the statutory limitation period and summary judgment was granted.

Following dismissal of a negligence action against an insurance broker relating to failure to advise about optional income replacement benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the defendants sought costs.

The court considered factors under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff argued the case raised novel issues and that access to justice considerations should reduce the award, but the court rejected those submissions, finding the issues were not novel and that adverse costs are a normal consequence of unsuccessful litigation.

Applying rule 49 settlement principles, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to November 18, 2010 and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, subject to a reduction in claimed trial preparation hours.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s $4.5 million action alleging that corporate sponsors of a soccer association owed a duty to ensure adequate insurance coverage for players, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs following a Rule 21 motion that terminated the claim at an early stage.

The court held that while the defendants were entitled to significant costs, the hours claimed by counsel were excessive and involved duplication of work.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the requested amounts and fixed reasonable costs payable to the successful defendants.

The defendants, corporate sponsors of a soccer organization, brought a motion under rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a negligence claim arising from a catastrophic soccer injury.

The plaintiff alleged the sponsors had a duty of care to ensure that the organization maintained adequate insurance coverage for players.

The court held that mere financial sponsorship and advertising relationships do not create a proximate relationship giving rise to a duty of care to participants.

The pleadings failed to establish reliance, proximity, or control over the event or insurance arrangements.

The statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck.