Adam Ostermeier

The court fixed the costs of the defendants' unsuccessful motion for further particulars.

The plaintiffs, as the successful party, sought full indemnity costs, while the defendants argued for no costs or limited partial indemnity.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that the motion's dismissal was due to "evolving Rules reforms" justifying no costs.

It also rejected the plaintiffs' request for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the defendants.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, considering the moderate complexity and the defendants' unnecessary pursuit of the motion, fixing the amount at $4,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendants brought a motion for particulars seeking additional details regarding the plaintiffs' claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent payments, oppression, and piercing the corporate veil.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim provided sufficient material facts to allow the defendants to plead.

The judge emphasized that many requested particulars were either already provided, within the defendants' own knowledge (e.g., corporate records), or could be obtained through the discovery process.

The court also expressed concern that the motion for particulars was being used as a delay tactic, contrary to the goals of civil procedure reform.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendant argued that the contract was frustrated and subject to force majeure because she could not transfer funds from Afghanistan due to the Taliban takeover, nor could she sell another property.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no force majeure clause in the agreement and that the doctrine of frustration did not apply because the lack of funds was not a supervening event that radically altered the contract.

The plaintiffs were awarded $280,739.28 in damages, representing the difference in sale price and carrying costs, and the deposit was ordered released to them.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's dismissal of an action for lack of jurisdiction, specifically finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The appellants, Ontario-incorporated companies, argued the motion judge erred in the jurisdictional analysis and improperly conducted a disguised summary judgment/issue determination motion.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the respondents, domiciled outside Ontario with business primarily in Singapore, lacked a sufficient connection to Ontario.

The court found the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of torts or contract breaches occurring in Ontario, or to rebut the presumption against jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment on an unpaid mortgage.

The defendant sold the property and paid the discharge amount under protest, disputing several administrative and legal fees.

The court applied section 8(1) of the Interest Act and disallowed most of the disputed fees, finding they lacked evidentiary support or constituted prohibited penalties, allowing only a discharge statement fee.

The issue of the plaintiff's allegedly undercharged legal fees was adjourned for further negotiation or submissions.