• FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education

Latest News Articles

July 11, 2019

Ontario crash victim must pay $61K in costs to men liable for her injuries

TORONTO – A woman awarded $50,000 by a jury for injuries suffered in a car crash will have to pay more than $61,000 to cover the costs of the two men she sued, even though losers in a lawsuit are normally on the hook for the winner’s legal bills 

Optional benefits priority ruling could create “administrative nightmare” for auto insurers

An insurance defence lawyer is warning of a potential “administrative nightmare” for insurers in light of a recent Court of Appeal for Ontario decision on priority disputes involving optional benefits. 

Hire the right lawyer for a catastrophic auto accident claim

Having a strong case after a catastrophic automobile accident may not be enough if you don’t have knowledgable representation, says Barrie-area personal injury lawyer Steve Rastin

Lorraine Explains: Deadly motorcycle crashes, and the drivers who cause them

Two weeks ago, at 7:30 am, a motorcyclist in Burlington, Ontario suffered life-threatening injuries when a car turned left in front of him. Later that night in the same city, a motorcyclist was killed when an SUV turned left in front of him. The next day, an Oakville driver was charged with making an unsafe left turn, causing a motorcyclist to be violently thrown and severely injured; the rider and bike ended up 40 metres from the point of impact. 

Extra protection in place for minors involved in a lawsuit

Toronto personal injury lawyer Jasmine Daya is undaunted by the extra steps associated with a lawsuit launched on behalf of a minor plaintiff. 

Owners of Scion and Subaru cars are scared a safety recall could be dangerous

Matthew Foster has a problem with his 2013 Scion FR-S, a Toyota-owned brand. The car’s engine failed last May and he has to pay $7,000 to replace it. 

Proposed New Legislation Will Make It Nearly Impossible To Sue The Provincial Government

The Ontario government wants to make it much harder for people to sue them. By some accounts it will be nearly impossible to sue the government once the legislation passes. 

Income Replacement Benefits after a car accident in Ontario

If you have been hurt or injured in a car accident in Ontario, you may be entitled to an income replacement benefit of up to $400/week (or more if you paid an additional insurance premium to increase your IRB level). 

Toronto hospital fires around 150 employees after uncovering multimillion-dollar fraud

In what could be one of the largest and longest-lasting benefits fraud schemes ever discovered in Canada, a Toronto geriatric hospital has dismissed approximately 150 employees for falsely claiming as much as $5 million in benefits over an eight-year period. 

Disclosure of Harm – General Consultation

The College’s Disclosure of Harm policy is currently being reviewed. The draft policy updates the expectations of physicians where a patient has experienced harm or potential harm in the course of medical treatment. 

Brain injury from Toronto crash derailed Kiesza’s pop career. Now she’s back

The Calgary-born singer and songwriter — best known for taking the world by storm by her house-influenced dance smash “Hideaway” and its accompanying album Sound of A Woman — had just relocated to Toronto two years ago from the Big Apple when tragedy struck. 
Dermann v. Baker, 2019 ONCA 584 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/j1cr4  

[20]      As noted above, the jury returned a verdict of $50,000, which was reduced to $12,016.67 due to the application of a statutory deductible. The trial judge entered a judgment of “$nil” after further reducing that amount by the $20,000 advance payment. He ordered costs against the appellant, whom he considered to be in the same position as if the action had been dismissed.

[21]      On appeal, the appellant concedes that the trial judge entered the correct judgment amount. Section 120 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, provides that a plaintiff who receives a payment from a defendant releases the defendant from liability to the extent of that payment, and will only be entitled to a reduced judgment:

Advance payments

120 (1) If a defendant makes a payment to a plaintiff who is or alleges to be entitled to recover from the defendant, the payment constitutes, to the extent of the payment, a release by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s personal representative of any claim that the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s personal representative or any person claiming through or under the plaintiff or by virtue of Part V of the Family Law Act may have against the defendant.

Payment to be taken into account

(3) The court shall adjudicate upon the matter first without reference to the payment but, in giving judgment, the payment shall be taken into account and the plaintiff shall only be entitled to judgment for the net amount, if any.[2]

[22]      Nevertheless, the appellant submits that the trial judge should not have considered the advance payment in his costs analysis. She argues that, in spite of the “$nil” judgment, she was successful against the respondents because she obtained a verdict greater than the statutory deductible. The appellant acknowledges that, even before deducting the advance payment, her recovery was less than the respondents’ offer to settle. As a result, she relies on r. 49.10(2) for the position that she is entitled to be partially indemnified for costs she incurred until the date of the respondents’ offer to settle and that the respondents are only entitled to be indemnified for costs they incurred after that date.

[23]      We do not accept this submission. Under r. 49.10(2), the costs consequences flowing from a defendant’s offer to settle depend on the judgment obtained, not other amounts received during the litigation. If the plaintiff obtains a judgment less favourable than the defendant’s offer, the plaintiff is indemnified for costs incurred until the date of the offer and the defendant for costs incurred subsequently. The rule provides:

Defendant’s Offer

49.10(2) Where an offer to settle,

(a) is made by a defendant at least seven days before the commencement of the hearing;

(b) is not withdrawn and does not expire before the commencement of the hearing; and

(c) is not accepted by the plaintiff,

and the plaintiff obtains a judgment as favourable as or less favourable than the terms of the offer to settle, the plaintiff is entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date the offer was served and the defendant is entitled to partial indemnity costs from that date, unless the court orders otherwise.

Comments are closed.