Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on liability for a 2015 motor vehicle accident resulting in serious injuries to the plaintiff.

• Defendant accepted liability but pursued a third-party claim against the Ministry of Transportation and its contractor.

• Third-party liability hinged on adequacy of winter road maintenance.

• Reasonableness of a $210,000 settlement was contested by the third parties.

• Legal arguments invoked the Negligence Act to determine contribution rights.

• The court addressed complex cost consequences resulting from pre-trial settlement conduct.

Facts and outcome of the case

This case arose from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on February 12, 2015. The plaintiff, Ronald Busch, a member of the Canadian military and former helicopter pilot, suffered serious injuries when the defendant, Cristy Mitton, lost control of her vehicle on a winter road, crossed the center line, and struck Busch’s vehicle. As a result of the accident, Busch sustained a crush fracture to his heel and lost his flight qualifications, ultimately ending his flying career.

Busch sued Mitton for damages, and Mitton in turn issued a third-party claim against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (represented by the Minister of Transportation) and Carillion Canada Inc., the province’s winter road maintenance contractor. Mitton’s position throughout litigation was that any resolution required the third parties to contribute 50% to the settlement. The court noted that this position blurred the distinction between the main and third-party actions, which are separate under Ontario law. Importantly, the plaintiff had no contributory negligence, so the main dispute was over damages and apportionment of liability among the other parties.

The case settled on May 31, 2024, for $210,000 plus interest, shortly before a scheduled 4–5 week trial. However, the third parties initially refused to acknowledge the reasonableness of the settlement, which triggered additional litigation to satisfy the requirements under section 2 of the Negligence Act. That section requires a tortfeasor seeking contribution from another to prove that the amount of settlement was reasonable.

Judge Hooper found the Ministry of Transportation's refusal to accept the settlement amount as reasonable was unjustified, especially given Busch’s clear and credible testimony about the life-altering consequences of the accident. The judge inferred that the Ministry feared the court would assess damages even higher if the trial proceeded, motivating its eventual agreement to the reasonableness of the settlement.

On costs, the court awarded Busch $282,251.79 from the defendant, inclusive of legal fees and disbursements. The judge ruled that legal fees should be awarded on a partial indemnity basis up to the settlement and on a full indemnity basis thereafter due to the Ministry’s unreasonable conduct. Additionally, the Ministry, as a successful third party, was entitled to costs of $155,739.31, but this amount was reduced to account for the $18,103.75 in post-settlement legal expenses the Ministry was indirectly responsible for. Ultimately, the defendant was ordered to pay the costs to both the plaintiff and the Ministry.

The plaintiff emerged successful, having achieved a favorable settlement and cost ruling. The third parties were also vindicated, as their non-liability was upheld. The defendant, however, was left bearing the financial burden of both cost awards due to her insurer's litigation strategy.