Lawless v Joanovits, 2024 ONSC 1561
Reading Time: 3 minutes (approx.)
By: Krista Nasartschuk
Regional Senior Justice M.L. Edwards took the opportunity to caution solicitors on the risk of taking a ‘hard ball’ approach to personal injury cases in his decision in the matter of Lawless v Joanovits, 2024 ONSC 1561.
Following a five-day jury trial relating to the Occupier’s Liability Act, the Plaintiff was awarded a judgment of $18,000. After the trial, the court received written costs submissions, with the Plaintiff seeking approximately $140,000 in pre-judgment interest, costs, and disbursements. The Defendant opposed this amount on the basis that the Plaintiff’s recovery fell within the jurisdiction of either the Small Claims Court or the Simplified Rules.
The court noted that both parties engaged in strategies, neither of which was reflected in the outcome of the trial. The Plaintiff denied contributory negligence, while the Defendant adopted a position of no liability. The court further noted that both provided quantum of damages which were not consistent with the jury verdict.
Regional Senior Justice M.L. Edwards commented that, “This was a case that could and should have been resolved if both sides had reflected on the risks of litigation reflected in the jury’s award”. He elaborated that there is a degree of risk associated with virtually all cases, and that resolution requires each party to make an informed and realistic assessment of risk. This risk should be reflected in a party’s settlement proposals.
While acknowledging that an award for costs which exceeds the value of damages assessed by a jury may be viewed as disproportionate, the court held that the most basic legal principle as it relates to an assessment of costs is to ensure that the costs awarded are fair, reasonable and reflect what the losing party could reasonably anticipate paying.
By pursuing a ‘no-liability’ strategy, the defendant failed to recognize the risks of litigation, namely that such a position may result in a costs award in favor of the Plaintiff. Ultimately, the court awarded the Plaintiff $50,000 in costs, and $18,677.42 in disbursements.
Link: https://canlii.ca/t/k3hd8
