This is a helpful case about how to succeed on motions for default judgment in the context of personal injury actions.

The plaintiff brought a motion to have counsel for the defendant removed due to a potential conflict of interest. The plaintiff was a personal injury lawyer who had had discussions about his case with lawyers from an insurance defence firm. This insurance defence firm was subsequently hired by the defendant’s insurer in the plaintiff’s personal injury action. The plaintiff sought defence counsel’s removal from the action, owing to the aforementioned discussions.

Unidentified carrier added to claim Five Years Post-Accident.

Court awards $11,300 in costs where late served surveillance leads to a mistrial and an adjournment.

Hearing loss results in two marked impairments and entitlement to non-earner benefits despite return to work.

In a recent costs endorsement against Aviva, the Court held that insurers who took positions on modest claims that necessitated a trial should not be allowed to rely on a strict application of the proportionality principle in determining costs. The Court held that as Aviva had made a tactical decision to reject a Rule 49 offer that the Plaintiff beat at trial, it should bear the full magnitude of the consequences of that strategy. Although the Plaintiff was ultimately awarded only $20,414.83 for her damages, the court ordered a costs award of $237,017.50 payable to the Plaintiff.