Warren WhiteKnight

Following a 17-day trial resulting in a net judgment of approximately $472,000 for the plaintiffs, the court assessed costs.

The plaintiffs sought over $445,000 in fees and disbursements.

The court reduced the senior counsel's hourly rate, applied a 60% partial indemnity rate, and deducted amounts for unsupported time and disbursements.

The court declined the defendants' request to impose a $40,000 remedial penalty on the plaintiffs for refusing to mediate, noting such penalties should be proportionate to a party's financial strength.

Costs were fixed at $204,811.50 for fees and $42,545.30 for disbursements, plus HST.

Following a jury verdict in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision involving a cyclist, the court addressed post-verdict issues including the statutory threshold for recovery of non-pecuniary damages, the applicable statutory deductible, and the appropriate rate of pre‑judgment interest.

The court found that the injured plaintiff established a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function under the Insurance Act threshold.

The court further held that the increased statutory deductible introduced by O. Reg. 221/15 applied to pending actions, characterizing the deductible as procedural in nature and applicable to quantification of damages.

However, the court concluded that entitlement to and quantification of pre‑judgment interest are substantive matters and therefore the amended Insurance Act provisions did not apply retrospectively.

Pre‑judgment interest was therefore calculated under Rule 53.10 until December 31, 2014 and under s. 128(1) of the Courts of Justice Act thereafter.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the driver of the other vehicle.

After the expiry of the limitation period, the defendant stated at discovery that he lost control on black ice and obtained leave to issue a third party claim against the municipalities for failure to maintain the road.

The plaintiff successfully moved to add the municipalities as defendants based on the discoverability principle.

The municipalities brought a motion for leave to appeal that order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the clock started to run only when the defendant raised the issue of winter maintenance, and the municipalities failed to meet the test for leave to appeal under rule 62.02(4).