11/27/2025
Three Key Lessons from the Recent Decisions in Miller v. Lajoie
Our recent work on the Miller v. Lajoie litigation produced several important decisions that now appear on CanLII, including the trial reasons, the related trial costs decision, and the Court of Appeal’s stay decision released on November 14, 2025. The underlying case arose from a negligent home inspection that led our clients to purchase a property with significant and undisclosed structural issues.
Taken together, these decisions illustrate several recurring themes in civil litigation. They show how declining a reasonable Rule 49 offer can dramatically increase costs, how self-representation can create compounding procedural and financial risks, and how enforcing a judgment during an appeal often requires further strategic steps. This matter is also notable because the plaintiffs’ legal costs ultimately exceeded the damages awarded, something that occurs only in exceptional cases where the litigation history supports such a result.
1. Declining a Reasonable Rule 49 Offer Can Be Extremely Costly
Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure encourages early and reasonable settlement. When a party rejects a fair offer and the outcome at trial is less favourable than the offer, significant cost consequences follow.
Here, the plaintiffs offered to settle for $50,000 dollars in March 2023. They ultimately recovered $64,211.80 dollars at trial. Because the offer was not accepted, Justice Flaherty awarded substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer and partial indemnity costs before that date, resulting in a total of $65,242.57 dollars in trial costs.
It is rare for costs to exceed damages, but this was one of those cases. The refusal to accept a reasonable offer, combined with the conduct of the litigation, made this outcome inevitable. Even though the costs were higher than the judgment, Justice Flaherty did not find the costs excessive, unreasonable, or disproportionate.
The Court confirmed that a party is never obligated to settle, but “declining an offer to settle is not without consequences.” There were no exceptional circumstances to depart from Rule 49.10.
The lesson is simple. Rejecting a fair offer can dramatically increase the amount you end up paying.
2. Self-Representation Often Creates More Risk Than Savings
Before retaining counsel, the defendant made multiple procedural errors, including failing to confirm motions, filing late materials, and not providing timely disclosure. Justice Flaherty noted that these issues contributed to the overall cost of the litigation: “The defendants’ own conduct contributed to the costs of the proceeding. This included Mr. Lajoie’s failure to confirm motion, to file materials on time, and to provide timely disclosure.”
Self-representation may appear cost-effective in the short term, but this case shows how it can lead to adjournments, wasted preparation, added complexity, and ultimately significant cost consequences. By the time counsel is retained, much of the damage has already been done.
3. Winning at Trial Does Not Guarantee Immediate Payment
Money judgments are automatically stayed when an appeal is filed. Even successful plaintiffs may need to take additional steps before they can enforce their judgment.
We brought a motion to lift the stay. These motions are not straightforward. Courts are cautious about granting relief that may limit access to justice. Generally, the Court of Appeal prefers that appeals be heard on their merits rather than restricted by financial preconditions.
The appellant court judge has discretion to lift a stay imposed by R. 63.01(1) “on such terms as are just”, and will consider three principal factors:
1. The financial hardship to the respondent if the stay is not lifted;
2. The ability of the respondent to repay or provide security for the amount paid; and,
3. The merits of the appeal.
Justice Roberts found that all three criteria were met. The plaintiffs’ hardship was “compelling and uncontradicted.” They could repay the funds if necessary. Most importantly, the Court of Appeal stated plainly that the appeal “appears to have little merit.”
In those circumstances, it would be unjust to allow an appeal with little merit to continue while the successful parties remained unable to repair their home. The Court therefore ordered the defendant to pay $47,252.08 dollars toward urgent repairs and $8,000 dollars in costs, for a total of $55,252.08 dollars. The appeal remains stayed until this amount is paid. If the defendant does not comply, the plaintiffs may bring a motion to dismiss the appeal entirely.
This is an important reminder. While such appellant relief motions carry risk, and courts are reluctant to interfere with an appellant’s access to justice, there are cases where fairness requires intervention to prevent ongoing prejudice to the successful party.
Final Thoughts
The decisions in Miller v. Lajoie highlight the real-world impact of litigation strategy. Rule 49 offers should be evaluated carefully. Self-representation often introduces risks that outweigh any perceived benefit. And a trial judgment sometimes requires further steps to enforce when appeals are involved.
This case also shows that the Court of Appeal will step in when the evidence of hardship is strong and an appeal lacks merit. In such circumstances, it is neither fair nor practical to allow the appeal to continue unconditionally.
