Benoit M. Duchesne

Following the adjournment of a civil trial after the defendants sought leave to file a late expert report on the eve of trial, the plaintiff sought recovery of costs thrown away.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including success, proportionality, reasonable expectations of the losing party, and the principle of indemnity.

The court held that the defendants' conduct in serving the expert report immediately before trial justified an award of costs on a complete indemnity basis for wasted preparation.

However, the court applied a 50% reduction to certain trial preparation time to reflect work that would remain useful for the future trial and adjusted other disputed items.

Costs thrown away were fixed at $27,951 plus HST and disbursements.

Following an unsuccessful injunction application arising from a shareholder dispute within a closely‑held corporation, the court addressed costs.

The litigation stemmed from a contested annual general meeting and banking resolution allegedly used to remove an equal shareholder’s rights.

The court found the proceedings were effectively directed by a non‑party shareholder who sought to advance his personal interests through the corporation.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court ordered that shareholder personally liable for costs payable to both the defendant financial institution and the successful intervenor shareholder, awarding substantial indemnity costs in favour of the intervenor.

A corporate shareholder and director sought leave to be added as a party to litigation involving a company and its bank concerning enforcement of a banking resolution adopted at an annual general meeting.

The court considered Rule 13.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found the proposed party had a direct personal and corporate interest in the proceeding and could be adversely affected by the outcome.

The court determined that the annual meeting lacked quorum and that the resulting corporate resolutions, including a banking resolution altering signing authority, were invalid.

The court dismissed the company’s injunction motion seeking to enforce the resolution and granted relief requiring disclosure of financial information to the added party under oppression principles in the Canada Business Corporations Act.