http://canlii.ca/t/gtqhj

1.      Decision:

25. 25. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to award costs but only under Rule 19.1 where a party in a proceeding has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith.

1.    Order:

26. 26. The Tribunal orders a second hearing by teleconference, to consider the following issues:

•             Is the Applicant entitled to recover the costs pursuant to Rule 19.1 of the LAT Rules of Practice and Procedure?
•             Did the Insurer unreasonably withhold or delay payments to the Applicant pursuant to section 10 of O. Reg. 664?

http://canlii.ca/t/gv43r

2. 2.The plaintiff retained the defendant lawyers to act on her behalf in advancing a tort claim and an accident benefits claim. The tort claim was started in February 2002 but was ultimately dismissed by Justice Rogin on a summary judgment motion on January 6, 2009. Justice Rogin found that the applicable limitation period for the tort claim expired one year after the accident in accordance with Tennessee law. The claim was out of time.

3. 3.The plaintiff started this action on August 13, 2009. She is claiming that the defendants acted negligently in the handling of her claims. Discovery is complete. This action has been set down for trial. A pre-trial will take place on October 18, 2016, just three business days from today. The trial is on the long trial list and is set for 20 days beginning January 3, 2017.

4. 4.Nearly 17 years has gone by since the plaintiff was injured. She has yet to have her day in court. The defendants now seek leave to amend their statement of defence. They want to add allegations regarding the state of the law at the time the tort statement of claim was issued in 2002 as part of their standard of care defence. They also seek to include allegations that the plaintiff missed the limitation period applicable to this negligence claim against her former lawyers.

Bill 12 – An Act to amend the Law Society Act, the Insurance Act and the Solicitors Act with respect to referral fees, contingency fees and awards for personal injury involving the use of an automobile – was tabled Wednesday by Tim Hudak, the Progressive Conservative finance critic, former party leader and Member of Provincial Parliament for Niagara West – Glanbrook.

http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/opposition-calls-33-cap-ontario-lawyers-contingency-fees-1004100186/

In personal injury litigation, generally, the loser of the case pays for a portion of the other side’s legal costs. Loser pays. It is ultimately a Judge’s discretion to order costs or not. And if costs are ordered, the Judge sets the amount at his or her discretion as well. The Judge can order the loser pay a dollar, or a million dollars. It’s entirely up to the Judge. The Judge bases his/her decision on a variety of which are detailed in Rule 57.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure:

http://www.torontoinjurylawyerblog.com/2016/09/legal-costs-context-personal-injury-case-ontario.html

Transparency will reveal that most personal injury lawyers are charging fair fees in the circumstances. As a firm practicing personal injury, we take on significant risk in almost every case. Insurance companies are refusing to pay reasonable compensation for injuries and are forcing injured victims to litigate these cases. To properly present these cases at trial, personal injury lawyers not only risk hundreds of hours of their time but thousands and thousands of dollars. We cover all of the case costs including doctor’s fees, court costs and expert fees until the case concludes.

http://bonnlaw.ca/2016/08/30/personal-injury-lawyers-fees/