Albert Samson Frank

This decision addresses a claim for partial indemnity costs by intervenors Terence Tse and Best Motoring Fine Cars Ltd. ("Mr. Tse") against Rosemont Management Inc. and McCaul Leasehold Management Limited ("Rosemont").

Mr. Tse sought costs for successfully intervening in the main application and for resisting Rosemont's motion to enforce a settlement.

The court found Rosemont's argument that the costs award was premature to be without merit.

Despite Mr. Tse's initial claim of over $108,000, the court assessed a reasonable award of $50,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable forthwith by Rosemont to Mr. Tse.

The court clarified its jurisdiction to award costs for both motions, including the intervenor motion whose costs had been deferred by a previous judge.

The plaintiffs, GS International Holdings Ltd. and Yin Wu, brought a $5 million action for contractual debt, business defamation, and intentional interference with economic relations against Smart Vision Direct Inc., Galaxy Security Corporation, and Li Fang Chen.

The defendants counterclaimed for $30 million, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and contractual breaches by the plaintiffs and other parties.

The court found Annie Chen (Li Fang Chen) liable for contractual debt ($122,000 to GS International, $30,000 to Gabriel Wu/Yin Wu) and for intentional interference with economic relations ($40,000 to GS International) and defamation ($2,000 to Gabriel Wu).

The court dismissed the counterclaim, finding no breach of fiduciary duty or restrictive covenant by the defendants to counterclaim, largely due to the vague and contradictory nature of the post-separation business agreement and insufficient evidence of damages.

Following a motion in a wrongful dismissal action involving a multinational employer, the court had previously stayed the Ontario proceeding on the basis of forum non conveniens while finding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter.

The defendants sought substantial costs after obtaining the stay.

The court considered the factors under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the complexity and novelty of jurisdictional issues involving cross‑border employment disputes.

Because the plaintiff succeeded on the jurisdiction issue while the defendants succeeded on forum non conveniens, the result of the motion was divided.

Exercising its discretion, the court concluded that fairness required no costs award.

Following a motion hearing concerning a significant advance payment request in complex estate-related litigation, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying the factors in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered the importance and novelty of the issues and the reasonable expectations of experienced litigants.

The plaintiff was successful and entitled to substantial costs for the motion.

The court also addressed the entitlement of the estate trustee during litigation to costs payable from the estate under a prior order.

A surviving spouse sought an advance equalization payment of $4.5 million from the estate of her deceased husband under the Family Law Act or, alternatively, partial summary judgment.

The motion was opposed by several defendants asserting potential claims against the estate and challenging their standing and the appropriateness of the advance.

The court held that the equalization entitlement between spouses is personal under the Family Law Act and that the defendants were neither proven creditors nor beneficiaries.

Applying the three-part test for advance equalization payments from Laamanen v. Laamanen, the court found a reasonable need for litigation funding, little doubt of entitlement to at least the requested amount, and that granting the advance was just in the circumstances.

Following earlier rulings on a derivative leave motion in estate litigation, the court addressed outstanding procedural directions and the issue of costs for five related motions.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $144,000 for work connected primarily to the derivative issues.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principles discussed in Boucher v. Public Accountants, the court held that the requested amount far exceeded the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful parties for a one‑day motion.

Substantial indemnity costs were denied.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendants jointly and severally at $55,000 inclusive of taxes and interest.