Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court awarded costs to the claimant and the parents, but denied special costs, double costs, increased costs, and a judge-led costs assessment.
The court awarded special costs to the plaintiff for reprehensible litigation conduct, but refused double costs because the settlement offer was not one the defendant had to accept.
Although the Court had statutory jurisdiction under s.139(3) to award costs, the court dismissed the respondent's request because the established general rule precludes awarding costs in provincial offence appeals and because the appeal raised an important, novel issue of statutory interpretation of 'occupier' of provincial significance, making this an inappropriate case for costs.
Source excerpt
Costs decision in a motor vehicle injury case: the court made a Sanderson order against Kora Goodrick and awarded the Tod Estate double costs from October 10, 2012.
Because the respondent made a clear, more favourable written settlement offer in November 2010 that the appellants did not accept and because the appellants presented a weak, inconsistent and incomplete evidentiary case, the Court fixed costs in the aggregate at $25,000 (reflecting substantially indemnity costs after the offer) plus disbursements, to be paid within 60 days and apportioned one third to each appellant.
Source excerpt
The court granted the defendant’s Rule 37B application for double costs after finding the plaintiff should reasonably have accepted the settlement offer.
The court dismissed a daughter’s claims that her brother unduly influenced their mother. It found no fiduciary relationship and upheld the gift transfers, awarding special costs.
On costs after a motor vehicle accident jury trial, the court held the plaintiff’s informal counter-offer did not revoke the defendant’s Rule 37B offer and awarded Scale B costs.
The court dismissed an application to set aside the costs provision of an entered order, holding that none of the narrow exceptions to functus officio or Rule 41(24) applied.
The Insurance Act s.267(1) requires that statutory income replacement benefits be deducted from the amount of damages actually awarded to the plaintiff — i.e. after any apportionment for contributory negligence — and the deduction must be made from the global award for loss of income; the trial judge's discretionary decisions on mistrial and trial costs are entitled to deference and not disturbed except as varied to apply the proper sequence of deduction.
Source excerpt
Explore more
