Steven Coons

The applicant sought a declaration that he had submitted to an examination under oath under s. 33(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule after attending the examiner's office and leaving after 30 minutes because the insurer's counsel was late due to a scheduling error.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant thwarted the process without a legal basis and that his counsel engaged in sharp practice by taking advantage of opposing counsel's mistake without fair warning.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the plaintiff for the production of an investigative and surveillance report, which the defendant had resisted on grounds of privilege.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendant sought set-off costs for a prior motion.

The court found the plaintiff entirely successful on the production issue, which involved a novel point of law.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff, a lawyer represented by counsel from his own firm, should not recover costs, deeming it speculative and inconsistent with cost award principles.

The court determined that the defendant's steadfast maintenance of privilege was the principal cause of delay and the necessity of the motions.

The plaintiff was awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the granting of State Farm's motion for summary judgment, which dismissed the action.

State Farm sought $16,830.23 in costs, while the plaintiffs proposed $10,000.00.

The court considered the factors outlined in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the result, counsel's experience, expected costs, amount claimed, complexity, importance of issues, and party conduct.

The court noted concerns with State Farm's Bill of Costs, specifically the involvement of multiple lawyers and potential duplication of work, but also considered the plaintiffs' rejection of a $1,000 settlement offer.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs at $15,000.00, payable by the plaintiffs to State Farm.

CUMIS General Insurance Company appealed a trial judgment finding that an unlicensed driver operated the respondent's vehicle without consent, either express or implied.

CUMIS argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in her factual findings and failed to establish the tort of negligent entrustment.

The appellate court rejected all of CUMIS's arguments, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual conclusions.

The court also held that even if negligent entrustment exists in Ontario, it could not be established given the finding of no implied consent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

In the first phase of a bifurcated trial, the court addressed whether a 16-year-old G1 driver, Nihad Ismail, had his father Sherif's express or implied consent to operate his vehicle, and whether Sherif Ismail negligently entrusted the vehicle to Nihad.

Nihad was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving his father's car without permission.

The court found no evidence of express or implied consent, noting Nihad's subjective belief that he lacked permission and the absence of prior unauthorized use known to the father.

The court also dismissed the claim of negligent entrustment, finding that the element of "entrustment" was not established as there was no direct giving of the chattel from owner to operator.

Consequently, Sherif Ismail was not held vicariously liable under the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant hotel management company brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a personal injury action arising from the collapse of a hotel balcony at a resort in the Dominican Republic.

The plaintiffs alleged that the moving party held itself out as an operator of the resort and could be liable as an occupier.

Evidence suggested a close relationship between the moving party and another corporate entity responsible for resort operations, creating uncertainty regarding operational control and responsibility.

The court held that contradictory evidence regarding the entities’ roles and potential occupier’s liability made summary judgment inappropriate.

The motion was dismissed and the plaintiffs were awarded costs.

The court determined costs arising from four similar insurance motions brought by separate defendants in related actions.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $36,500.

The court found that a deduction was required because some counsel time related to unargued Charter applications rather than the motions themselves.

Applying the principles from Hunt v. TD Securities Inc., the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead reduced the requested amount by $8,000.

The plaintiffs were awarded $28,500 plus HST, payable equally among the defendants.

The plaintiffs, injured in motor vehicle accidents, applied for mediation through the Financial Services Commission of Ontario regarding entitlement to statutory accident benefits.

Mediation was not scheduled within 60 days of filing their applications, and the regulator refused to issue reports declaring mediation had failed, asserting the 60‑day period began only once a mediator was appointed.

The plaintiffs commenced court actions and the insurers moved to strike the claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held that Rule 19 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code imposes a mandatory requirement that mediation be concluded within 60 days of filing the mediation application.

Because that period had expired, mediation was deemed to have failed and the plaintiffs were not required to obtain a failed mediation report or pursue internal appeals or judicial review before commencing their actions.