Vicki-Jo Edgar

Following a successful 12-day jury trial where the plaintiffs were awarded $2,170,188 in damages (net $1,749,690.54), the court addressed the parties' dispute over costs.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs until their offer to settle and substantial indemnity thereafter, arguing they "beat" their offer.

The defendants sought reductions for costs related to statutory accident benefits (SABS) litigation, an interlocutory motion to add a party, and a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) hearing, as well as certain disbursements.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors, fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $478,750.00 (inclusive of HST and disbursements) and allowed the defendants a $5,000 deduction for the collateral benefits motion, resulting in a net award of $473,750.00 to the plaintiffs.

The decision disallowed costs for the WSIAT hearing, the interlocutory motion, and certain disbursements (meals, courier, copying, adverse costs insurance), while partially allowing SABS-related costs due to the benefit derived by the defendants.

This addendum clarifies and corrects the court's previous Reasons released on December 5, 2023, regarding the application of a statutory deductible to a Family Law Act award.

Following a jury trial, the court had initially misunderstood the parties' agreement, stating no deductible applied to Sandra McCurdy's $65,000 award.

This addendum rectifies that, confirming the award is subject to the statutory deductible of $22,183.63, resulting in a revised total net judgment for the plaintiffs.

Following a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court determined whether long-term disability benefits received by the plaintiff from a private Manulife policy were deductible from the jury's award for past and future income loss.

The court held that the Manulife benefits met the criteria under s. 3(7)(d) of Ontario Regulation 34/10, as they were offered to employed persons and the maximum benefit was calculated with reference to employment income.

Consequently, the benefits were deemed payments under an income continuation benefit plan, making them deductible from the income loss award and subject to assignment under s. 267.8 of the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff suffered a fractured shoulder after slipping on broken glass near a donation bin located on municipal property.

The bin was owned by the defendant, who had placed it there without the city's permission.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court found that the defendant exercised sufficient control over the bin and surrounding area to be considered an 'occupier' under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court awarded the plaintiff general damages, past and future income loss, and special damages, but dismissed her son's Family Law Act claim due to a lack of admissible evidence.

The plaintiff, a former paramedic, was involuntarily admitted to a hospital under the Mental Health Act following a situational crisis and substance abuse relapse.

While in a mental health seclusion room, he became highly agitated, wrapped his hands in fabric, and made threatening gestures toward security staff.

Pursuant to a physician's order, hospital security guards entered the room and physically restrained the plaintiff so that chemical restraints could be administered.

The plaintiff sued the hospital and the security guards, alleging unnecessary and excessive use of force, an unsafe room environment, and that his blood was taken without consent.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the security guards acted reasonably, the force used was not excessive, the room was safe, and the plaintiff had consented to the bloodwork.