Associate Judge Barbara McAfee

The plaintiff sought costs for the defendant's abandoned motion for security for costs.

The court, applying Rule 37.09(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiff entitled to costs.

Considering the circumstances, including the delivery of motion records and preparation for cross-examinations but absence of facta or actual cross-examinations, the court fixed the all-inclusive costs at $10,000, rejecting both the plaintiff's higher claim of $21,847.65 and the defendant's lower offer of $4,500.

The decision emphasized that costs awards should reflect a fair and reasonable amount rather than an exact measure of actual costs.

The plaintiff, Norman Wong, sought costs following a successful motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation and to amend the statement of claim.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, but significantly reduced the amount sought and ordered separate payments from the Sereda defendants ($2,000) and the Smith defendants ($6,000), payable in the cause, rather than on a joint and several basis.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs from the date of an offer to settle, finding the offer did not fully address the relief granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings and questions refused during the examination for discovery of a representative of the defendant Intercontinental Hotels Group (Canada) Inc. (IHG), and an order for re-attendance on discovery.

The parties consented to answering some undertakings.

The court ordered IHG to answer additional undertakings and refusals, finding some questions relevant to the pleadings, including one regarding the reasonableness of having a doorman.

A re-attendance for 1.5 hours was ordered due to the number and nature of outstanding discovery issues.

Costs of $1,500.00 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Silani Sweet Cheese Limited, brought a motion under Rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to withdraw deemed admissions under Rule 51.03 and for an order extending the time to serve a response to a request to admit.

The defendant, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, opposed the motion.

The court applied the three-part test for withdrawing admissions, finding that there was a triable issue, the failure to respond was inadvertent, and the withdrawal would not result in uncompensable prejudice to the defendant.

The motion was granted, allowing the withdrawal of deemed admissions and extending the time for the plaintiff to serve a proper response, with no costs awarded.

A plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue a writ of possession against defendants following their default on a second mortgage and non-compliance with previous court orders.

A defendant sought a further adjournment to file responding material, citing a disorder, but this request was denied due to insufficient evidence and a history of previous adjournments.

The court noted the defendants' consistent failure to meet deadlines and make payments, including the plaintiff's payment of the first mortgage to prevent default.

The motion for leave to issue a writ of possession was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to prevent the dismissal of its action for delay.

The defendants opposed the motion, seeking dismissal of the action against them.

The court found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the litigation delay, which included ongoing settlement discussions and issues related to the decommissioning of a gas station site.

The court also determined that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

Consequently, the motion was granted, the action was allowed to proceed, and a timetable for the remaining steps was ordered.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim, Viola, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff/defendant to counterclaim, Alexandre (represented by Sach), to re-attend cross-examination to answer nine specific questions and follow-up questions.

The questions were initially refused and later answered in writing, but not under oath or in accordance with a prior court order.

The court granted the motion, finding that while re-attendance is not an absolute right, it was reasonable and just given the circumstances, particularly the failure to comply with a previous order regarding the conduct of cross-examinations and the lack of sworn testimony.

The court also awarded Viola $1,500 in costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings and questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendant Juice DMS Advertising Inc., and an order compelling a representative of Juice DMS to re-attend discovery.

The court granted most of the plaintiff's requests for answers to undertakings and refusals, including compelling Juice DMS to make inquiries of a former employee now adverse in interest.

A re-attendance on discovery was ordered by consent.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant, Payman Khanlari, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Hossein Aboutaleb-Maragheh, under Rule 56.01(1)(a) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario and was impecunious.

However, applying a holistic approach to the "justness" of the order, the court determined that the action was not plainly devoid of merit and had a good chance of success, and that the plaintiff's financial circumstances were a result of the funds at issue in the action.

Consequently, the motion for security for costs was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff $12,500.00 in costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment to recognize and enforce a California judgment against the defendants.

The defendants were noted in default and did not appear at the motion.

The court granted default judgment against one defendant, Ariane Slaught, finding the claim to be a contract debt falling within Rule 19.04(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The defendant opposed several proposed amendments, including the addition of an alternative claim for damages for spoliation and claims related to the loss of long-term disability benefits.

The Master granted leave to amend to plead the independent tort of spoliation, noting it remains an open question in Ontario.

However, leave was denied for the proposed amendment claiming damages against the tort defendant for a long-term disability insurer's denial of benefits.

The motion was granted in part, with parties bearing their own costs.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from successful motions by the plaintiffs and the Gomez defendants to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The Danikas defendants had opposed setting aside the dismissal order against them and also opposed paying costs to the Gomez defendants.

The court ordered the Danikas defendants to pay $3,500 in costs to the plaintiffs (by consent) and $5,000 in costs to the Gomez defendants, finding the latter successful and that the "Reid factors" for setting aside the dismissal were satisfied.

The defendant Colin Bosa brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiffs, Welhelm Ventures Corporation and John Gregory Aulin, to post $100,000 security for costs on a full indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court applied Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the plaintiffs conceded the initial onus.

However, the motion was dismissed because it was deemed unjust due to significant delay in bringing it (four and a half years after the statement of defence and after the action was set down for trial) and insufficient evidence regarding the quantum and scale of costs sought.

The Palkowski defendants moved to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's action for failure to pay two outstanding costs orders and for security for costs.

The plaintiff opposed, claiming impecuniosity.

The court found the plaintiff failed to establish impecuniosity but declined to dismiss the action immediately, granting the plaintiff 60 days to pay the outstanding costs.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed due to delay in bringing the motion and the complexity of the case, making the merits a neutral factor.

No costs were awarded for either the current motion or the prior motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal order.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The defendants Frank Naccarato and Radeon Technologies Ltd. opposed the motion, while Radiant Hospitality Systems Ltd. took no position.

The court applied a contextual approach, considering the explanation for the litigation delay, the inadvertence in missing the deadline, the promptness of the motion, and the absence of actual prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the delay adequately explained, the deadline missed due to inadvertence, the motion brought promptly, and no actual prejudice affecting the defendants' ability to defend.

Consequently, the motion was granted, setting aside the dismissal order and extending the time to set the action down for trial, with no costs awarded.

Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP (the law firm) brought a motion seeking leave to release $77,228.85 from its trust account to its general account, representing outstanding fees owed by its former client, Stipan Ivancic.

Ivancic opposed the motion, having commenced a separate action alleging solicitor's negligence as a defence to the fees.

The court dismissed the law firm's motion, deeming it premature given the unresolved issues of fees and alleged negligence in the separate action.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to extend the time to prepare, file, and serve a statement of claim.

The action arose from a commercial lease dispute where the defendant landlord allegedly locked the plaintiff out and seized assets.

The notice of action was issued and served in November 2016, but no statement of claim was filed.

The court found the plaintiff's delay was adequately explained by financial hardship and medical issues.

Applying the Chiarelli test, the court held the plaintiffs rebutted the presumption of prejudice, as the defendant had photographic evidence and lists of assets.

The motion was granted, with costs of $500 awarded to the defendant in the cause for prior adjournments.

The defendant Coseco Insurance Company brought a motion under Rule 30.06(b) for an order requiring the co-defendant Sofia Constantinidis to serve a further and better affidavit of documents.

Coseco sought production of complete underwriting and broker files for all vehicles and family members insured by Economical Mutual Insurance Company, relevant to the issue of whether the driver had consent to operate the vehicle involved in the accident.

The Master partially granted the motion, ordering production of the underwriting and broker files specifically relating to the vehicle involved in the accident up to the date of the notice letter, but denied production for other vehicles and non-parties.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and noting in default obtained by the plaintiff in an action arising from a marketing agreement.

The defendant failed to defend the action because it had not updated its corporate profile address and did not receive the statement of claim.

The court found that although the motion was not brought promptly, the defendant had a plausible explanation for the default and established an arguable defence of set-off on the merits.

The motion was granted and the default judgment was set aside with no costs awarded.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a foreign corporation suing for an unpaid invoice.

The plaintiff had previously obtained summary judgment, which was set aside on appeal solely because the application of the International Sales Conventions Act had not been considered.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it would be unjust to order security for costs given the plaintiff's prior success on the merits and the late stage of the proceeding.