-
Recent Posts
Archives
- October 2015
- July 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- January 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- September 2011
- May 2011
- February 2011
- October 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
Categories
- Advertising Injury
- Allocation of Defence Costs
- Appeals
- Auto
- Auto (Tort)
- CGL
- Collateral Benefits
- Commercial Litigation
- Conflict of Laws
- Contract
- Costs
- Damages
- Defamation
- Discoverability
- Discovery
- Duty to Defend
- Environmental
- Evidence
- Exclusions
- Experts and Opinions
- Fire Insurance
- Fires
- FLA
- Insurance News
- Juries
- Lawyers
- Limitation Periods
- Litigation Technology
- Municipalities
- Occupier's Liability
- Pleadings
- Practice and Procedure
- Practice of Law
- Privacy
- Privilege
- Products Liability
- Professional Liability
- Risk Transfer
- Sale of Goods
- Social and Commercial Host Liability
- Subrogation
- Threshold
- Tort News
- Trial Procedure
- Uncategorized
- Uninsured or Underinsured
- Waivers and releases
Meta
Category Archives: Costs
More costs confusion
I’ve come across a couple of decisions recently that make it even more challenging for an “Elgin Street hack” (to paraphrase John Mortimer) to figure out the law of costs. My attention was drawn to the first one by Debra … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on More costs confusion
C.A. rejects Mantella approach on costs
In a decision rendered today, the Court of Appeal has made it clear that partial indemnity costs should not be awarded in an amount that is equivalent to substantial indemnity. The case is 790668 Ontario Inc. v. D’Andrea Management Inc., 2015 … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on C.A. rejects Mantella approach on costs
More costs uncertainty
A recent post commented on the dichotomy in the approaches followed by Ontario courts in fixing costs. Some use an objective approach (in which the Rules Committee’s “Information for the Profession” is the starting point and the actual hourly rate has … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on More costs uncertainty
“Meta-costs” submissions?
I noticed recently that Justice Frederick L. Myers gave a decision in which he betrayed some unhappiness about so often having to adjudicate issues of costs. He made it clear that counsel should be able to settle costs and that if … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on “Meta-costs” submissions?
Partial indemnity costs: determined objectively or subjectively?
In TMS Lighting Ltd. v. KJS Transport Inc., Mr. Justice David Price made some comments about fixing partial indemnity costs that, I think, are noteworthy. He held unequivocally that the correct approach, at least in the first instance, is an objective … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on Partial indemnity costs: determined objectively or subjectively?
Costs: Nothing for Research
In Huber v. Way, 2014 ONSC 6535 (CanLII), Mr Justice Patrick J. Flynn was dealing with costs of a simplified procedure case in which, to his dismay, the trial had lasted eight days. He had given judgment to the plaintiff for … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on Costs: Nothing for Research
C.A. Penalizes Insurer For Refusing to Mediate
In Williston v. Hamilton (Police Service), 2013 ONCA 296, the Court of Appeal considered whether to make an “augmented award of costs” on the basis that the defendant, the City of Hamilton, had refused requests to engage in mediation pursuant to … Continue reading
Divisional Court Says Partial Indemnity Costs To Be Calculated On Basis of Costs Subcommittee’s Rates, Not Counsel’s Actual Rates
UPDATE: Just a few days after the decision in Geographic Resources was released, Regional Senior Justice Charles T. Hackland has handed down his costs ruling in the widely-publicized case of Guergis v. Novak et al. Justice Hackland too endorsed the Mantella principle (and … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on Divisional Court Says Partial Indemnity Costs To Be Calculated On Basis of Costs Subcommittee’s Rates, Not Counsel’s Actual Rates
Rule 76 Cases Between Regular Trials and Small Claims Court for Costs Purposes
Worth noting: Justice Kevin W. Whitaker has held, in Moore v. CHRY Community, 2012 ONSC 5122 (CanLII), that for purposes of awarding costs, actions tried under simplified procedure occupy a position between Small Claims Court trials and trials held under ordinary … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on Rule 76 Cases Between Regular Trials and Small Claims Court for Costs Purposes
C.A. Says Conviction for Careless Driving Doesn’t Allow Auto Insurer to Deny Coverage On the Basis of Intentional Act
In Savage v. Belecque, released last week, the Court of Appeal considered whether Allstate Insurance had been justified in denying coverage to a young driver and to his mother, the owner of the car, on the basis that the act … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Costs, Duty to Defend
Comments Off on C.A. Says Conviction for Careless Driving Doesn’t Allow Auto Insurer to Deny Coverage On the Basis of Intentional Act