Brianne L. Simionati

Following reasons granting summary judgment in a reduced amount, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $18,000 plus disbursements and interest.

The court applied Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, considering factors such as the degree of success, proportionality between the amount claimed and recovered, the limited complexity of the proceeding, and the conduct of the responding party which unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.

Although the moving party succeeded, the recovery was less than half the amount claimed.

The court awarded reduced costs and granted prejudgment interest.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to amend her statement of defence and add a counterclaim in a commercial lease dispute involving alleged rental arrears, utilities, and insurance costs.

The plaintiff opposed the amendment, arguing the proposed defences, including a limitation period defence and allegations of fiduciary duty, were legally untenable and constituted delay tactics.

Applying Rules 26.01, 26.02, and 27.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that leave to amend should generally be granted unless non-compensable prejudice would result.

The court found that although some proposed defences appeared tenuous, the litigation was at an early stage and the plaintiff would suffer no prejudice that could not be compensated by costs.

Leave to amend and add the counterclaim was granted, with directions that the summary judgment motion proceed after the amended pleadings and related steps.