The Appellant, the City of Branford, brought an appeal before the Court disputing costs awarded to the Respondent, Herbet, following a trial for compensation of injuries sustained on a public biking trail. The City first submitted that the trial judge erred in law, by applying section 3(1) of the Occupier’s Liability Act, rather than section 4 of the Act. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the City’s of Brantford’s submissions, finding that the trial judge had indeed considered and applied all relevant sections of the Act, including both sections 3(1) and 4. The Court of Appeal concluded that the City’s failure to maintain the biking trail to the standards established under the Act amounted to a total disregard of the respondent’s safety. The City was held partially liable for the respondent’s injuries which resulted in tetraplegia, and this part of the appeal was dismissed.
The City further submitted that the costs awarded at trial with respect to interest charged for expert opinion reports used in the trial were unreasonable. Before addressing access to justice issues, relevant to Herbert, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the costs issue related to compound interest on expert reports.
Additionally, the Respondents were awarded $15,000.00 for their costs of the appeal.