S. Oostdyk

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial list due to inordinate delay, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought full indemnity costs of $7,122.96, arguing the nature of the plaintiff's claims warranted elevated costs.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, noting the action had not been dismissed and the plaintiff's behavior did not warrant sanction.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $3,576.45, finding this amount fair and reasonable.

The plaintiff brought a motion to restore his motor vehicle accident claim to the trial list after it was struck due to multiple adjournments.

The plaintiff argued the delay was intentional to allow for a catastrophic impairment assessment and to join related actions.

The court found the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, noting he had not even applied for the catastrophic impairment designation.

Furthermore, the court found the defendant would suffer actual, non-compensable prejudice because two key medical witnesses could no longer be located.

The motion to restore the action to the trial list was dismissed.

Following a motion in civil litigation, the parties were unable to agree on the quantum of costs payable to the successful party.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $6,000, while the defendant argued that no costs should be awarded or, alternatively, that the claimed amount was excessive.

The court applied the governing principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that costs must be fair and reasonable and generally follow the event.

The court rejected the defendant’s submission that no costs should be awarded but found no basis for elevated costs and reduced the claimed fees and disbursements on proportionality grounds.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including caregiver and non-earner benefits, from her insurer.

The insurer terminated caregiver benefits after 104 weeks, prompting the plaintiff to sue for the benefits, as well as damages for bad faith and mental distress.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the claim was statute-barred because it was commenced more than two years after the insurer's clear refusal to pay.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the claim were not statute-barred, the plaintiff failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, largely due to pre-existing conditions and a lack of objective medical evidence.

The claims for bad faith and mental distress were also dismissed as the insurer's conduct was reasonable and there was insufficient evidence of compensable distress.