Skip to content

Client Update: Changes to the Rules of the Supreme Court

Recent changes to the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986, SNL 1986, c 42, Sch D

On December 14, 2012, several changes were made to the Rules of the Supreme Court. These changes include: who may act as representative plaintiffs, settlement offers, and contingency agreements.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE REPLACES REGISTRAR

Changes have been made to the rules which dictate who may act as a representative plaintiff in applications for certification, where all the members of the group are under disability. The old Rule 7A.04 allowed a parent, guardian or the registrar to act, whereas now the registrar is replaced with the public trustee.

The same is true for Rule 56.30 with regards to probate and administration of the estate of a mentally disabled person. This rule has been updated to reflect that any role played by the registrar should now be changed to the public trustee.

SETTLEMENT OFFERS UNDER RULE 20A.08

As of February 1, 2013, changes will impact the current provisions for failing to accept a settlement offer, imposing greater penalties to litigants who fail to accept an offer more favourable to an eventual outcome.

Under the new rules, if the plaintiff makes a settlement offer which is refused and the outcome is more favourable than the offer, the plaintiff will be entitled to double party and party costs plus taxed disbursements after the date of service of the offer.

If the defendant makes a settlement offer and the outcome is no more favourable for the plaintiff than that offer, the defendant will be entitled to party and party costs after the date of the offer.

If the defendant makes a settlement offer which is refused by the plaintiff, and the claim is dismissed at trial, the defendant will be entitled to party and party costs to the date of the offer and double party and party costs thereafter.

There will be a new rule regarding the scale of costs, dictating that once a judgment is awarded under a column of costs, that column cannot later be changed if settlement offer consequences apply.

The substantive cost consequences are not applicable to family proceedings.

The determinative date as to whether the new or old rules will apply is the date of the hearing of the matter. Therefore, offers and applications made under the old rules heard after February 1, 2013 will be considered under the new rules unless a successful argument is made otherwise.

CONTINGENCY AGREEMENT

While contingency agreements formally had to be filed with the court under Rule 55.16, this is now repealed and the requirement is only to provide a copy of the signed agreement to the client.

The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions, or for a detailed list and background of our insurance practice area, please visit stewmac.arrdev.ca.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top