Brent J. Foreman

This decision addresses the costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff TCA's claim against the defendant Art Gallery of Hamilton (AGH) after a five-day trial.

The AGH, as the successful party, sought partial indemnity costs of $94,152.91.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing for a denial or significant reduction of costs due to proportionality concerns, excessive fees, and "over-lawyering" by the AGH's counsel.

The court found the AGH's claimed fees to be excessive and disproportionately high given the modest nature and complexity of the dispute, and that the involvement of multiple lawyers in nearly every step was unreasonable.

The court fixed the AGH's costs at $62,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, specifically excluding costs for a contested motion regarding undertakings.

The plaintiff architectural firm sued the defendant art gallery for $68,970.14 in unpaid fees for services rendered pursuant to an alleged oral contract.

The plaintiff claimed it was retained to complete architectural design services for a grant application and future expansion plans.

The defendant argued the agreement was limited to assisting with the grant application for a $3,000 honorarium, which had been paid.

The court found that the contract was limited to the grant application for the agreed honorarium.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's alternative claims based on implied acceptance and quantum meruit, finding no evidence that the defendant used the work for anything other than the grant application.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff insurance brokerage sued a former producer for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference, claiming damages for commissions earned by the defendant after she joined a competing firm.

The defendant counterclaimed for reimbursement of unpaid premiums that the plaintiff had deducted from her earnings.

The court found that the plaintiff's unilateral imposition of a charge-back policy for unpaid premiums was a breach of contract, entitling the defendant to reimbursement.

However, the court also found that the defendant breached a valid non-solicitation clause by accepting business from the plaintiff's former clients, requiring her to disgorge the commissions earned.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty, finding the defendant was not a key employee.