A. Chapman

The defendants sought costs following a 20-day trial where the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the defendants succeeded on their counterclaim.

The court awarded the first group of defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiffs' reprehensible conduct, which amounted to elder abuse.

The second group of defendants was awarded partial indemnity costs, as the claims against them were not found to be vexatious.

Total costs of over $325,000 were awarded against the plaintiffs.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside the noting of pleadings closed in a motor vehicle accident subrogated claim brought by an insurer under s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act.

The court considered whether the defendant had been properly served with the statement of claim and whether an arguable defence existed.

Evidence showed the claim had been left with a person who no longer resided in the same household as the defendant and mailed to an address that was not his place of residence, contrary to Rule 16.03(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that valid service had never been effected and that denying the defendant the opportunity to defend would breach natural justice given the size of the judgment and the existence of a potential defence.

The noting in default was set aside and the defendant was granted leave to deliver a statement of defence.

Following a family law trial involving child support, spousal support, and net family property equalization, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court assessed which party achieved greater success and evaluated the parties’ settlement offers and litigation conduct.

The applicant obtained more favourable results on child support and s.7 expenses, while spousal support was not ordered due to her inability to pay.

Although success on property equalization was somewhat mixed, the applicant’s offer to settle was substantially closer to the trial outcome and the respondent’s offer was found unreasonable, particularly given his failure to propose any child support.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs.

The moving party sought to set aside an ex parte order permitting the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to add the moving party, a former estate solicitor, as a defendant.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts on the ex parte motion, including prior proceedings, the involvement of other counsel, and facts relevant to the limitation period.

The court also determined that any claim against the solicitor was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiffs discovered the material facts giving rise to the claim no later than November 25, 2009.

As the two‑year limitation period had expired before the solicitor was added as a defendant, the proposed claim constituted an untenable plea.

The ex parte order was therefore set aside and costs were awarded to the moving party.