Alastair McNish

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's affidavit evidence due to misconduct during a virtual cross-examination.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's wife and son were in the room off-camera, coaching the respondent with hand and facial gestures.

The court accepted the evidence of the independent interpreter, who confirmed the presence and coaching by the family members.

Finding this to be a deliberate abuse of process that tainted the entire testimony, the court struck the respondent's affidavit.

The successful self-represented party on an appeal sought a higher costs award than the $2,500 partial indemnity amount agreed to by the parties at the hearing.

He argued that the opposing party took advantage of his lack of knowledge regarding typical costs allowances.

The court declined to vary the agreement, finding the agreed amount reasonable and noting no legal justification for a higher scale of costs.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the successful party.

The appellant law firm appealed a Master's order allowing the assessment of 13 paid accounts for legal services provided to the respondent client.

The Master had found 'special circumstances' justifying the assessment because the client reasonably believed his matters constituted one ongoing retainer and objected to the firm unilaterally paying its accounts from his settlement funds.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the Housen standard of review, found no palpable and overriding errors in the Master's factual findings or application of the law, and dismissed the appeal.

The defendant abandoned its motion for an interlocutory injunction after failing to obtain interim relief.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing it had made an offer to settle that it beat due to the abandonment.

The court held that under Rule 49, a responding party is not automatically entitled to substantial indemnity costs upon beating an offer, and such an award requires reprehensible conduct, which was absent here.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $17,500.

The applicants sought court approval for the sale of two properties pursuant to a previous order under the Partition Act.

The court approved the sale of the first property to an arm's length purchaser for $550,000.

For the second property, the court approved a sale to a non-arm's length purchaser for $825,000, which was higher than a competing arm's length offer, subject to the arm's length purchaser's right to match the higher price within five days.