Shantona Chaudhury

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appellants, The Regional Municipality of Sudbury and The City of Greater Sudbury, appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 17, 2015.

The appeal was unsuccessful.

The court awarded costs to the respondents in the amount of $95,000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

A tragic motor vehicle accident occurred on November 22, 2000, when a 20-year-old driver lost control of her vehicle on a snow-covered regional road during a winter storm and collided with an oncoming school bus, sustaining catastrophic injuries.

The plaintiff and her family sued the municipality for negligence, alleging failure to maintain the road in a reasonable state of repair under the Municipal Act.

At trial, the municipality was found 100% liable for approximately $12 million in damages.

On appeal, the municipality challenged the trial judge's findings regarding statutory defences under sections 284(1.2) and 284(1.3) of the Municipal Act and the trial judge's rejection of a contributory negligence claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding that the municipality had actual or constructive knowledge of the risk of road refreezing and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the hazardous conditions that caused the accident.

On remand from the Supreme Court of Canada following the Ledcor decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reconsidered its earlier dismissal of a class action appeal.

The appellant challenged Bell Mobility's seizure of prepaid credits, arguing that Bell's contractual terms and subsequent communications created an obligation to wait until after expiry before seizing funds.

The court affirmed its previous decision, holding that the expiry date was determined at the time of top-up purchase and reflected in the PIN receipts and phone cards, not in subsequent reminder messages or account page displays.

The court found that the appellant's real complaint concerned misrepresentation or promissory estoppel, neither of which were amenable to class proceeding resolution.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal and cross-appeal in a civil matter.

The respondents (Jarbeaus) were successful on the cross-appeal while the appellant (McLean) was unsuccessful on the appeal.

The court awarded costs to the Jarbeaus in the amount of $75,000, allocated as $18,000 to the cross-appeal and $57,000 to the appeal, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The court declined to fix prejudgment interest or vary the trial costs award of $231,000.

The respondents purchased a defective new home from a builder and hired a negligent lawyer who failed to sue the engineer within the limitation period, incorrectly advising them they had no cause of action against the engineer.

After settling their first action, the respondents sued the lawyer for negligence.

The trial judge admitted the lawyer's negligence but characterized both the jury's damage assessments (cost to repair at $433,000 and diminution in value at $265,000) as perverse, awarded judgment for the lesser amount of $190,000 (after deducting the settlement amount), and significantly reduced the respondents' costs despite them bettering their settlement offer.

The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal, finding the jury's assessments were not perverse, that damages should be awarded on a cost-to-repair basis at $433,000 without deducting the settlement amount, and that the respondents were entitled to substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10.