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


 
 

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top