Thomas Allan Bates

Following a lengthy condominium dispute trial involving claims of solicitor negligence, construction defects, and condominium governance issues, the court addressed the allocation of costs among multiple parties.

The plaintiff succeeded against the solicitor defendant but failed against several other defendants, including the condominium corporation and property management company.

Applying the principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed reasonable expectations, proportionality, litigation conduct, and Rule 49 settlement offers.

The court issued a Sanderson order requiring the negligent solicitor defendant to pay the costs of the successful condominium defendant, while also apportioning part of the successful property manager’s costs between the plaintiff and the solicitor defendant.

Substantial costs awards were fixed reflecting the complexity and length of the litigation.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving an uninsured motorist.

She sued her former solicitor for failing to commence an action against the tortfeasor within the limitation period.

She later sought to amend her statement of claim to add a direct action against her insurer.

The master refused the amendment, finding the claim was statute-barred.

The solicitor appealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the limitation period for a direct action against an insurer begins when the insured knew or ought to have known the tortfeasor was uninsured, which in this case was more than two years before the proposed amendment.