• 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

June 25, 2019

Last year, 41 cyclists were killed or seriously injured – I was one of them

It took me three months to walk again, and five to walk without a cane. It wasn’t therapy or confidence that got me back on two wheels. It was anger.



What cabinet upheaval means for auto reform progress

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has made drastic changes to his cabinet just months after including auto reforms in its first budget.

Taking over as finance minister – and in effect, the auto insurance file – will be Rod Phillips. The former finance minster, Vic Fedeli, has been moved to the ministry of economic development.

Downey commits to collaborative approach as Ontario’s new attorney general

Lauded by former colleagues for his collegiality, Ontario’s new Attorney General Douglas Richard Downey plans to take a collaborative approach on new initiatives and lingering issues that dogged his predecessor, including one that drew a comment from Canada’s top judge.


IBC: Fraud is an attack on everyone – insurers, consumers, law enforcement

In a recent statement, the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) made clear that it is serious about addressing the issue of insurance fraud – particularly auto insurance fraud. But it needs help from everyone involved.


West v. Knowles, 2019 ONSC 3829 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j13kw

[1]           The plaintiff, Joshua West, was involved in a motor vehicle accident on June 5, 2010, while as a passenger in the car driven by the defendant, Gordon Knowles, and owned by the defendant, Robin West.  Mr. Knowles drove into a tree. Following a four-week trial before a jury, the jury returned a verdict in which it granted $160,000 for general damages, $50,000 for past loss income and $500,000 for future loss of income.

[2]           Joshua West now seeks a cost award for fees and disbursements against the defendant in the amount of $481,134.49 inclusive of HST.  The defendant submits that the appropriate range for Joshua West’s fees would be $125,000-150,000 plus disbursements and HST.  Also, the defendant seeks a cost award against the plaintiff, Robert West, in the range of $9,000-15,000 plus HST.

[10]        Rule 57.01 states:

57.01 (1) In exercising its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act to award costs, the court may consider, in addition to the result in the proceeding and any offer to settle or to contribute made in writing,

(0.a) the principle of indemnity, including, where applicable, the experience of the lawyer for the party entitled to the costs as well as the rates charged and the hours spent by that lawyer;

(0.b) the amount of costs that an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay in relation to the step in the proceeding for which costs are being fixed;

(a) the amount claimed and the amount recovered in the proceeding;

(b) the apportionment of liability;

(c) the complexity of the proceeding;

(d) the importance of the issues;

(e) the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding;

(f) whether any step in the proceeding was,

(i) improper, vexatious or unnecessary, or

(ii) taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution;

(g) a party’s denial of or refusal to admit anything that should have been admitted;

(h) whether it is appropriate to award any costs or more than one set of costs where a party,

(i) commenced separate proceedings for claims that should have been made in one proceeding, or

(ii) in defending a proceeding separated unnecessarily from another party in the same interest or defended by a different lawyer; and

(i) any other matter relevant to the question of costs.  R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 57.01 (1); O. Reg. 627/98, s. 6; O. Reg. 42/05, s. 4 (1); O. Reg. 575/07, s. 1. 

Comments are closed.