2 total
The Court of Appeal held that costs following a settlement should be apportioned based on settlement contributions rather than a reconstructed assessment of liability.
This appeal concerns the correct analytical approach to fixing costs when an action is settled before adjudication on the merits.
Two infant plaintiffs were catastrophically injured when struck by a vehicle in 2004.
After more than ten years of litigation, the parties settled in June 2017, three months before trial.
The settlement provided for $1 million from each of the Potrebics and Pipolos, with costs to be determined by the court.
The motion judge apportioned costs based on his assessment of the parties' respective liability for damages, finding the Potrebics solely responsible.
The appellants challenged this apportionment and the quantum of costs awarded.
Motion to strike granted; statistical data about other motorists' insurance choices struck as improper pleading of evidence.
The plaintiff brought a motion to strike two paragraphs from the defendants' Statement of Defence in an action for professional negligence against his insurance brokers.
The impugned paragraphs pleaded statistical data regarding the percentage of Ontario motorists who opted for $1,000,000 in third-party liability coverage.
The court found that the statistical data was not a material fact necessary for the defence and violated Rule 25.06(1) by pleading evidence rather than facts.
The motion was granted and the paragraphs were struck.
