4 total
Court awards reduced partial indemnity costs after striking claims against individual defendants.
Following a motion to strike portions of a statement of claim, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to individually named defendants whose claims had been struck as an abuse of process.
The plaintiff had asserted a $10 million claim against individual employees and directors of corporate defendants without adequately pleading separate acts or interests beyond their corporate roles.
The individual defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the claims constituted tactical harassment.
The court found the claims against the individuals lacked proper particulars but concluded the circumstances did not justify elevated costs.
Partial indemnity costs were instead fixed at reduced amounts reflecting duplication of work with corporate defendants’ counsel.
Pleading deficiencies strike several tort claims but GPS‑tracking trespass and confidence claims survive.
The defendants moved under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim alleging civil conspiracy, unlawful interference with economic interests, trespass, and breach of confidence arising from alleged GPS tracking of the plaintiff’s service vehicles to obtain customer information.
The court held that the pleadings for civil conspiracy lacked the required material facts and particulars but granted leave to amend.
The claim for intentional interference with economic interests was struck without leave to amend because the pleadings failed to allege unlawful means directed at a third party as required by the Supreme Court’s formulation of the tort.
Allegations against individual corporate officers were struck as an abuse of process for failing to plead independent tortious conduct.
Claims for trespass to chattels and breach of confidence were allowed to proceed, while the trespass to land claim was struck with leave to amend.
Defendants awarded costs after security for costs motion resolved by consent.
Following settlement of a security for costs motion by consent order requiring the corporate plaintiffs to post security into court, the court was asked to determine costs of the motion.
The plaintiffs argued the motion was unnecessary because they had offered undertakings from partners and allegedly accepted settlement proposals involving promissory notes.
The court held that a costs endorsement should not determine the merits of the underlying motion and applied the test of whether the moving parties’ position was clearly unreasonable.
It found the defendants reasonably proceeded with the motion, as the sufficiency of the undertakings and the existence of a concluded settlement were not self‑evident and the plaintiffs failed to provide timely details.
The moving parties, having obtained substantially the relief sought through the consent order, were awarded partial indemnity costs.
Appeals dismissed as the court fully agreed with the reasons of the lower court judge.
The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeals, stating they were in entire agreement with the reasons of the lower court judge.
The respondent did not seek costs.
