A. Dhillon

In an ongoing construction lien reference, both the plaintiff and the defendant sought costs for prior motions.

The plaintiff had taken over the litigation from the original plaintiff after the original plaintiff went bankrupt.

The court found that the defendant unreasonably delayed consenting to the plaintiff's lift-stay motions, entitling the plaintiff to costs.

However, the court also found that the current plaintiff was the 'real litigant' behind the bankrupt original plaintiff during the defendant's earlier successful stay motion, meeting the 'person of straw' test.

Consequently, the current plaintiff was held liable for the defendant's costs of that motion.

After setting off the amounts, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant net partial indemnity costs of $31,500.

Following a successful trial in a construction lien and breach of contract action, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's claimed fees and disbursements, making minor reductions for excessive time and undocumented expenses, but allowing the full cost of the plaintiff's damages expert.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs, finding that the defendant's aggressive litigation strategy—including advancing and later abandoning a large counterclaim and unfounded allegations of dishonesty—amounted to commercial bullying that unnecessarily complicated and prolonged the proceedings.

The defendants requested that the plaintiff's action be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff's claim alleged defamation, intentional infliction of mental distress, and intimidation arising from text messages and public misrepresentations by an immigration consultant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the statement of claim was confusing and poorly drafted, it contained the core of a legitimate complaint and did not exhibit the typical hallmarks of a Rule 2.1 case.

The plaintiff excavation company entered into an hourly-rate contract with the defendant builder to perform excavation and grading work for a 354-home residential development.

After the plaintiff completed work on the first 261 lots, the defendant paused the project and subsequently demanded the plaintiff agree to a fixed-price contract for the remaining 93 lots.

When the plaintiff refused, the defendant hired a replacement subcontractor without providing written notice as required by the contract.

The court found that the defendant breached the contract by failing to permit the plaintiff to finish the work.

The court awarded the plaintiff its unpaid invoices of $66,213.30 and lost profit damages of $199,000.

Following a case conference, the judge released an endorsement.

Counsel for both the plaintiff and defendant subsequently wrote to the court to correct certain dates regarding the delivery of the trial record, the fixing of pretrial and trial dates, and the service of expert reports and affidavits of documents.

The judge issued this endorsement to correct the dates and noted that documentation relied on by the plaintiff's experts should have been produced upon request.

During case management conferences, the court addressed scheduling issues in a civil action where the anticipated trial length had increased from four days to eight to ten days.

The previously scheduled trial date was vacated as it could no longer accommodate the expanded timeframe.

The matter was directed to be placed on the January 2015 blitz trial list.

The court also addressed a submission that the trial had been marked peremptory to the plaintiff but noted no such order appeared on the record and invited counsel to bring any such order forward.

Counsel were directed to deliver an amended timetable reflecting the parties’ agreement.

Following a five‑day hybrid trial concerning governance disputes within a religious corporation, the court had previously set aside the admission of new members, the election of directors, and the appointment of officers, and imposed conditions for a court‑ordered members’ meeting under s. 297 of the Corporations Act.

The parties subsequently made competing claims for costs.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles from appellate authorities on proportionality and fairness, the court assessed the degree of success and the parties’ conduct.

The judge found that both factions contributed to the corporate dysfunction that generated the litigation and unnecessarily prolonged the trial.

Concluding that neither side could properly be regarded as successful, the court declined to award costs.

Members of a Sikh temple incorporated under the Ontario Corporations Act brought an action challenging the admission of 23 new members and the election of directors following a disputed board meeting and special members’ meeting.

The court found that the board meeting at which the new members were admitted had been convened using misleading notice and that opposing directors had been led to believe the meeting would not occur due to mediation efforts.

The admission of the new members was therefore conducted in bad faith and declared null and void.

Because those members participated in a subsequent members’ meeting, quorum was lacking and the election of directors and subsequent board appointments were also invalid.

The court issued extensive declaratory relief restoring the prior membership and board composition and ordered governance reforms, including a monitor, audits, training, and conditions before a court‑ordered members’ meeting could be held.