Tamara Broder

The appellants sought to adjourn their appeal of an associate judge's ruling on undertakings and refusals due to the unavailability of their lead counsel.

The appellants also sought to file transcripts of the multi-day hearing before the associate judge, which the respondent opposed.

The court granted the adjournment, setting a peremptory date for the appeal.

However, the court denied the request to file transcripts, noting they were unnecessary as they contained only legal arguments and the appellants had not referenced them in their factum.

The court also directed the parties to settle the underlying order with the associate judge.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle collision involving a public transit bus, the jury found that although liability was admitted, the plaintiff failed to prove the accident caused compensable injury.

After a subsequent hearing addressing responsibility for trial costs, the estate and former counsel were ordered to pay certain costs to the transit authority.

The present endorsement addressed a further request by the estate trustee, in her personal capacity, seeking substantial costs for the costs hearing itself.

The court held that proceedings determining costs rarely justify an additional award of costs absent unusual circumstances and found the amount claimed disproportionate to a one‑day hearing.

The court concluded that the ordinary principle that costs proceedings do not generate further costs should apply.

Following a jury trial concerning a motor vehicle collision in which liability had been admitted, the jury found that the accident did not cause or contribute to the injuries alleged by the deceased plaintiff.

The defendant transit authority sought costs.

The court held that the successful defendant was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale but reduced the fees claimed after finding aspects of the bill excessive.

The court further held that the estate trustee should not be personally liable for costs where she merely continued litigation commenced by the deceased.

However, due to counsel’s fundamental misunderstandings in presenting the damages case, the court ordered that a portion of the costs be paid personally by plaintiff’s counsel under Rule 57.07.

Following a trial where the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) was found not liable for a streetcar accident involving a four-year-old child, the TTC sought its costs of the proceeding.

The court declined to award costs to the TTC, noting that the child could not be at fault and that the TTC, as a public service, should bear the costs of defending such claims where the injured party is not at fault.

The court also declined to award costs for the TTC's counterclaim against the child's parents, resulting in no order as to costs for any party.

Following dismissal of a motion to enforce an alleged settlement of a personal injury action, the court addressed the quantum of costs payable personally by the plaintiff’s former lawyer whose misleading communications had precipitated the motion.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including fairness, reasonableness, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of unsuccessful parties.

Although the successful parties sought higher amounts on a substantial indemnity scale, the court examined comparable settlement‑enforcement motions and determined that the reasonable range was significantly lower.

Costs were fixed at $11,127.20 payable to the plaintiff and $7,781.66 payable to the TTC.

A motion was brought to strike a third party claim against the Toronto Transit Commission’s insurer arising from a pedestrian injury caused by an uninsured vehicle while the pedestrian attempted to board a stopped streetcar.

The moving party argued there was no privity of contract with the injured person or the defendant and that declaratory relief was inappropriate.

The court held that potential liability could arise under the statutory accident benefits priority scheme in s. 268(2) of the Insurance Act if the streetcar was "involved in the incident." Accepting the pleaded facts as true, the court found the allegations could support such involvement and therefore disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The third party claim was permitted to proceed and declaratory relief within the action was found appropriate to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 20.04 and 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking judgment enforcing a purported settlement allegedly accepted by the plaintiff’s solicitor.

The court found that the solicitor falsely represented that he had instructions to accept the settlement offer and acted without authority from the plaintiff.

The evidence established that the plaintiff had never agreed to the settlement and had not provided instructions directly or indirectly to accept it.

The court further held that it was not reasonable for the defendants to assume that the solicitor had authority to settle without explicit client instructions in light of prior communications.

The motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed, and the plaintiff’s former solicitor was ordered personally to pay the costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity scale under Rule 57.07.