Anthony Scane

The moving party brought a motion for leave to commence an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The plaintiff, Infor Financial Inc., sought costs of $511,762.22 following a four-day trial where it obtained a judgment more favorable than its settlement offer.

The defendant, Centrilogic, Inc., argued the amount was excessive and disproportionate.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to the full amount, applying partial indemnity costs up to the date of the settlement offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, in accordance with Rule 49.

The court rejected arguments of disproportionality and excessive time spent, noting the defendant's "hard-nosed approach" and intransigence throughout the litigation.

Following a successful motion by the defendant to temporarily stay the action, the court determined the quantum of costs payable by the responding party, General Sprinklers Inc. The moving party sought partial indemnity costs of $11,127.66, while the responding party suggested $5,000.00.

The court found the moving party's requested fees excessive due to overlap with related motions and fixed costs at $7,500.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party, a joint venture contractor, brought motions to temporarily stay several construction lien and bond actions commenced by its subcontractors pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration between the moving party and the project owners.

The court granted leave under the Construction Lien Act to bring the motions and ordered a temporary stay of the actions, finding it just to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings, particularly regarding the enforceability of a 'pay when paid' clause.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendant objected to the inclusion of costs related to an earlier interpleader motion, arguing that costs should have been sought at the time of that motion.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding it unfair to claim those costs retroactively, and deducted the associated amount.

The court further reduced the claim to align with the reasonable expectations of the parties, awarding the plaintiff a total of $70,173.14 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The applicant, Covanta, brought an application to set aside an arbitrator's decision to join two subcontractors to an ongoing arbitration between Covanta and the general contractor.

The arbitrator had joined the subcontractors under Article 17(5) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

Covanta argued the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction because the subcontractors were not parties to the arbitration agreement.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the arbitrator's decision was jurisdictional in nature and subject to review on a standard of correctness.

The Court found that the subcontractors were not parties to the arbitration agreement, as the subcontract did not properly incorporate the arbitration clause by reference.

The Court set aside the arbitrator's ruling and awarded costs of $50,000 to the applicant.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing its request for rectification of a definition in an Agreement of Purchase and Sale based on mutual mistake.

The dispute centered on the definition of 'Gross Floor Area' (GFA) and whether it should be rectified to correspond with a site-specific by-law rather than the City of Toronto By-law specified in the agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no mutual mistake because the respondent clearly intended to use the City of Toronto By-law definition to determine any increase in GFA.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that held it responsible for a back-charge of $64,955.92 for secondary electrical wiring on a construction project, and awarded costs of $93,604.17 to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the designer-built contract, finding the appellant was responsible for the wiring to the disconnect boxes.

The Court also upheld the costs award, noting it was influenced by an unaccepted Rule 49 offer and that both sides spent similar amounts of time on the litigation.

The appeal was dismissed.