Anthony M. Speciale

Khatija Khatri, successful in an application to discharge instruments from her property title, sought substantial indemnity costs.

Talat Khan, the respondent, opposed, citing Khatri's delay and uncooperative conduct, and the reinstatement of a Writ of Seizure and Sale in a related action.

The court awarded Khatri substantial indemnity costs from the date of her offer to settle, acknowledging her success on the application.

However, the quantum was reduced due to both parties' litigation conduct and the applicant's significant delay in pursuing the application.

The final costs award of $33,206.33 was stayed pending the determination of costs in a related "Brampton action."

This decision addresses multiple motions in a long-standing family law enforcement action.

The court granted Khatija Khatri's application to vacate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and other instruments from title to Bellwood Farm, finding the CPL had no legal basis after a prior order was set aside and the underlying application dismissed.

The court also granted Mohammad Munir Subhani and Khatija Khatri's motion to dismiss the action against them for inordinate and inexcusable delay, citing prejudice due to fading memories and health issues of key witnesses.

Talat Khan's motion for a new CPL was dismissed due to the dismissal of the action against those defendants and her own delay.

However, Talat Khan's motion for the reinstatement of a Writ of Seizure and Sale (No. 98-0259) was granted, as it was a support enforcement writ under the Family Law Rules and thus did not expire, and its removal was improper.

The plaintiffs sought to pursue claims regarding inter vivos transfers made by Caterina Iacobelli, which had been previously dismissed by a summary judgment order in 1997.

Despite subsequent rulings that allowed for further inquiry into these transfers if new evidence emerged from cross-examinations, the plaintiffs failed to present evidence establishing a cause of action based on those cross-examinations.

The court found that the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to substantiate their claims but did not do so, leading to the dismissal of their motion to pursue the inter vivos transfer claims.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were successful, the defendant Negravi made an assignment in bankruptcy before costs submissions were completed.

The court held that the proceedings to fix costs were not stayed by s. 69(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, applying the rule from British Gold Fields that costs associated with a pre-bankruptcy judgment for a liquidated sum are added to the sum recovered.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $150,000 in costs against Negravi on a substantial indemnity basis due to his unreasonable conduct and unfounded counterclaim.

Nominal costs were awarded against another defendant, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs to a successful third defendant.

The plaintiffs were successful at trial and sought costs.

Following the release of the trial judgment but before costs submissions were complete, the main defendant made an assignment in bankruptcy, triggering a stay of proceedings under s. 69(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to fix costs because the costs associated with a pre-bankruptcy judgment for a liquidated sum are regarded as an addition to the sum recovered.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $150,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the bankrupt defendant due to an unaccepted offer to settle and unfounded allegations of fraud.

The plaintiffs were also ordered to pay $5,661 in costs to a successful co-defendant, and were awarded $1,000 against another co-defendant for defending an exaggerated counterclaim.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities, the Ontario Securities Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The respondents raised approximately $25 million from investors for currency trading, resulting in significant losses.

The Commission ordered 15-year trading and director/officer bans against the respondents, with a carve-out allowing the individual respondent to trade in his own account.

The Commission also ordered the respondents to jointly and severally disgorge $2,193,873, representing the funds used for personal benefit, and imposed an administrative penalty of $250,000 on each respondent.

Costs of $150,000 were awarded to Staff.

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that M P Global Financial Ltd. and its sole director, Joe Feng Deng, engaged in unregistered trading, unregistered advising, and an illegal distribution of securities by selling 'Guarantee Corporation Debentures' to over 150 investors, raising over $21 million.

The funds were purportedly for foreign currency trading, but significant amounts were lost or used to pay other investors.

The Commission found that the Debentures were investment contracts and therefore securities.

The respondents breached the registration and prospectus requirements of the Securities Act.

Mr. Deng was found liable as a director for the corporate breaches.

The allegations of unregistered advising were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The conduct was found to be contrary to the public interest.

The appellants appealed an order striking various paragraphs from their statement of claim, which primarily alleged wrongful dismissal and intentional infliction of mental suffering arising from the employer's handling of a workplace affair.

The Court of Appeal found that while the pleadings were confusing, the claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering was adequately pleaded.

The wrongful dismissal claim required redrawing to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court also permitted the appellants to maintain their claims against a non-participating defendant and set aside the motion judge's award of substantial indemnity costs, substituting it with partial indemnity costs.

The parties made written submissions on costs following an appeal where success was substantially divided.

The appellants succeeded on the issues of the base period of reasonable notice and prejudgment interest, while the respondent succeeded on Wallace damages and bonus compensation.

The Court of Appeal held that the divided success did not warrant a departure from the general rule that no costs should be awarded.

The court also considered the respondent's settlement offer but found it did not propose a sufficiently meaningful compromise.

No costs of the appeal were awarded.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent 34 months' notice (30 months base plus 4 months Wallace damages) for wrongful dismissal.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in awarding a base notice period in excess of 24 months without exceptional circumstances, reducing the base period to 24 months.

The court upheld the 4-month Wallace extension due to the appellants' bad faith conduct during the dismissal.

The court also varied the prejudgment interest award, holding that interest should be calculated on an installment basis rather than a lump sum basis for the period during which salary continuance payments were made.

The appellant appealed an order striking its Third Party Notice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the pleading was deficient, it contained enough information to discern possible causes of action including unconscionability, breach of the Sale of Goods Act, and negligent misrepresentation.

The appellant was granted a further opportunity to properly articulate its claims.

However, due to the 'deplorable' state of the original pleading, the successful appellant was denied costs, and the respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $5,000.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding an exclusive supply agreement and awarding damages for its breach.

They argued that the trial judge erred in finding an exclusive supply agreement after concluding there was no consulting agreement, that the pleadings were deficient, and that the arrangement was merely an 'agreement to agree' due to missing terms like price.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the agreements were not so interrelated as to preclude finding a supply agreement, the pleadings were sufficient, and there was an implied term that raw materials would be provided at a reasonable price.

The court also upheld the trial judge's quantification of damages based on a 12-month period and a 15% profit margin.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of production employees.

The employer and a group of objecting employees challenged the reliability of the union's membership evidence, alleging misrepresentation and language barriers.

The Board dismissed these objections as insufficiently particularized or not raising matters that would invalidate the cards.

The parties disputed the inclusion of several positions in the bargaining unit.

The Board ruled that production facilitators, supervisor trainees, and engineers were included, while blenders and quality control staff were excluded as technical employees.

The Board also held that employees of a newly created division (Shrader/Malcolm) shared a sufficient community of interest with the production employees and were included in the unit.

An interim certificate was issued, with a Board Officer appointed to inquire into the remaining disputed position of office custodian.

One Board Member dissented regarding the inclusion of the Shrader/Malcolm employees.