A. Patrick Wymes

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a construction lien registered by Erbsville Electrical, which had remained unperfected for almost three years.

Erbsville Electrical removed the lien the day before the motion was heard.

The court held that Erbsville Electrical was responsible for the defendants' costs of the motion, as it was unreasonable to register a lien, take no steps to perfect it, and then refuse to pay the costs of its removal.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $750 plus HST against Erbsville Electrical, but declined to make it jointly and severally liable for costs ordered against other lien claimants.

Following a successful appeal reducing a costs assessment, the court determined the appropriate costs of the appeal.

The moving parties had substantially reduced the costs awarded to the plaintiffs by the assessment officer through the application of the proportionality principle.

Applying the general rule that costs follow the event, the court awarded the successful appellants partial indemnity costs.

The costs of the appeal were fixed at $7,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellants were permitted to set off this amount against the outstanding balance of costs payable to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs in a motor vehicle negligence action brought a motion to strike portions of the statement of defence on the basis that it failed to plead material facts regarding damages as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

They also sought an order requiring the defendant to answer a list of written discovery questions.

The court held that the impugned pleadings sufficiently set out material facts relating to damages, particularly given that the defendant would not yet possess detailed knowledge of the plaintiff’s medical condition.

The court further found that the proposed written discovery questions constituted an improper and excessive use of the discovery process.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety.

Appeal from a Certificate of Assessment of Costs following settlement of a motor vehicle accident action.

The plaintiffs accepted a pre‑trial settlement of $190,000 plus costs to be assessed, after which an assessment officer awarded partial indemnity costs exceeding $231,000.

The defendants appealed, arguing that the assessment officer failed to properly apply Rules 57.01(1) and 58.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to consider the principle of proportionality.

The court held that the assessment officer committed errors in principle by misdirecting himself regarding the applicable rules and by failing to address proportionality in light of the settlement amount.

The costs award was reduced to $102,000 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff bank succeeded in obtaining judgment against one defendant for fraud and under a personal guarantee, the court addressed competing claims for costs.

The bank sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $600,000, while certain defendants who successfully defended fraud allegations sought substantial indemnity costs for both trial and a prior Mareva injunction motion.

The court found that the bank had overstated and pursued broad allegations of fraud despite prior judicial warnings, unnecessarily lengthening the litigation.

Costs were therefore limited to partial indemnity and further reduced under Rule 57 for litigation conduct.

After applying equitable set‑off against costs awarded to two defendants, the court ordered one defendant to pay net costs to the bank.

The plaintiff sought costs after successfully defending two motions by the defendants that attempted to restrain her from filing further requests to admit.

The plaintiff claimed approximately $62,895 in legal fees and disbursements and had made a Rule 49 offer to settle costs for $33,000 all-inclusive.

The defendants argued the claim was disproportionate to the nature of the motions and proposed significantly lower amounts.

Applying the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the claimed time and assistant billing rate excessive.

Costs were reduced and fixed at $20,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff former employer moved for an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and confidentiality clauses against a former employee who invented a specialized technology.

The court applied the heightened 'strong prima facie case' standard for restrictive covenants in employment contracts.

While the court found a strong prima facie case that the employee breached non-competition provisions, it dismissed the injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as damages could be quantified.

However, the court granted a preservation order regarding the disputed technology and related electronic records.