-
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
Rule 49 Puzzle
Chaston v. Rathour shows that it can be tricky to figure out the costs consequences of offers to settle under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in cases involving multiple defendants. (Actually, the reasons of Mr. Justice David S. … Continue reading
Posted in Costs, Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on Rule 49 Puzzle
Court Rejects Discretionary Costs Premium and Reimbursement for “Carrying Costs” of Unpaid Fees and Disbursements
In Marcoccia v. Ford Credit Canada Limited, Mr. Justice Patrick Moore has written the latest chapter in one of Canada’s largest personal injury cases. In the course of doing so, he has made some instructive points about determining costs as … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on Court Rejects Discretionary Costs Premium and Reimbursement for “Carrying Costs” of Unpaid Fees and Disbursements
Court Approves Contingency Fee of $4.2 Million in Birth Injury Case
UPDATE: CanLII now has an active link to the reasons in this case. You can access it here. Accordingly, we have removed the PDF link that formerly appeared as part of this post. Mr. Justice Robert Smith has released a significant decision … Continue reading
Court Holds That Plaintiff’s Rule 49 Offer Must Take Into Account Future Accident Benefits
Abel v. Hamelin Costs Reasons Our post about the Montebello Civil Litigation Conference contained a brief discussion of a recent costs decision by Mr. Justice Charles Hackland in Abel v. Hamelin. We now have a copy of the reasons and … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Auto (Tort), Costs, Insurance News, Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on Court Holds That Plaintiff’s Rule 49 Offer Must Take Into Account Future Accident Benefits
Report From Montebello (2007)
The 2007 edition of the Montebello Civil Litigation Conference has ended. Our Heather Williams is the conference co-chair and Susanne Sviergula is on the organizing committee. The conference featured numerous visiting guests, each of whom lavished praise on the conference … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Costs, Insurance News, Juries, Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on Report From Montebello (2007)
Another Defendant Receives Substantial Indemnity Costs
In Davies v. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, Madam Justice J.E. Ferguson of the Ontario Superior Court was fixing costs in an action in which one of the defendants, “Blue Circle”, had been successful in having the claim … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on Another Defendant Receives Substantial Indemnity Costs
Defendant’s Offer to Consent to Dismissal Without Costs Entitles It to Substantial Indemnity Costs
At the trial of Dunstan v. Flying J. Travel Plaza, a slip and fall case, the jury found that the defendant was not liable to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the action was dismissed. The trial judge’s disposition of the costs issue … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on Defendant’s Offer to Consent to Dismissal Without Costs Entitles It to Substantial Indemnity Costs
C.A. Encourages Auto Insurers to Make Offers Without Applying IA Deductible
Some very good news for the plaintiff’s bar today, from the Court of Appeal: insurers’ offers to settle in MVA cases should contain “cushions” against the statutory deductibles. In Rider et al. v. Dydyk, the Court (Justices Jurianz, MacPherson and … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Costs, Insurance News, Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on C.A. Encourages Auto Insurers to Make Offers Without Applying IA Deductible
No “Risk Premiums” Even With Advent of “Full Indemnity” Costs
In Reaume v. Unifund Assurance, Justice Edward R. Browne was asked to consider the issue of “risk premiums” in an award of costs. Regular readers will recall that the Supreme Court of Canada said, in Ritchie v. Walker, that risk … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on No “Risk Premiums” Even With Advent of “Full Indemnity” Costs
Judge Criticizes Inadequacy of Material to Support Costs Claimed on Motion for Settlement Approval
Lau v. Bloomfield is the latest in a series of cases in which judges have taken lawyers to task for inadequate materials filed in support of motions for court approval of settlements. (See our previous discussions of Marcoccia v. Gill and … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on Judge Criticizes Inadequacy of Material to Support Costs Claimed on Motion for Settlement Approval