Brian Shiller

This is a costs endorsement following motions by three groups of defendants to strike the plaintiff's fresh as amended statement of claim.

The court had previously substantially granted the motion by the 1Plus12 Corporation defendants, dismissed the motions by the Ricci and Karp defendants to strike the statement of claim against them, and struck the plaintiff's affidavit.

This endorsement determines the costs payable between the parties.

The 1Plus12 defendants were awarded $17,000 in partial indemnity costs from the plaintiff, as they were substantially successful.

The Ricci defendants were awarded $9,000 in partial indemnity costs from the plaintiff, despite their motion to stay being dismissed, due to the necessity of responding to allegations of criminal conduct that were struck.

No costs were awarded to or against the Karp defendants, as their motion to strike the claim against them was dismissed, although they succeeded in striking the plaintiff's affidavit.

This endorsement concerns a costs award following a successful partial summary judgment motion brought by Deborah Scott.

The Plaintiff had made serious, unfounded allegations of criminality, immorality, deceit, theft, fraud, and elder abuse against Ms. Scott, which the court found to be without foundation.

Ms. Scott sought full indemnity costs, while the Plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs only.

The court determined that Ms. Scott should never have been a party to the litigation and that the Plaintiff's motivation was misplaced.

Citing precedent, the court awarded Ms. Scott full indemnity costs of $282,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be paid from the settlement funds.

The defendant, a long-time assistant to the deceased, brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss all claims against her in a complex estate and conspiracy action.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant was part of a conspiracy to strip the deceased's estate of assets to defeat a dependant's support claim.

The court found that partial summary judgment was appropriate and that there was no evidence the defendant participated in any conspiracy, acted as a fiduciary, or committed any of the alleged torts.

The motion was granted, and all claims and cross-claims against the moving party were dismissed.

The plaintiff, a co-founder of 1PLUS12, brought an action against numerous defendants, including the corporation's lawyers and investors, alleging a Ponzi scheme and claiming unpaid compensation.

Several groups of defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court struck the plaintiff's affidavit and the claims against the investors, finding the plaintiff lacked standing to advance claims on their behalf.

The court also struck certain scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs from the pleadings.

However, the court dismissed the motions to strike the entirety of the claims against the defendant lawyers and law firms, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims for negligence and misrepresentation would fail.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing its claims against multiple respondents related to alleged breaches of exclusion and limitation of liability clauses in entertainment contracts.

The appellant raised an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias based on comments made by the motion judge regarding a public policy argument.

The Court of Appeal rejected the bias allegation, finding the judge's comments were directed at the merits of the unsupported public policy claim, not at the appellant's indigenous culture or beliefs.

The Court upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the contractual provisions and rejection of the unconscionability argument.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Following a successful summary judgment motion by the defendants, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The plaintiff, a corporation represented by a non-lawyer with leave, sought costs of $7,500, which was denied due to a complete lack of success.

The court awarded the defendants $18,480.74 in costs, finding the amount fair and reasonable given the complexity of the issues and the plaintiff's overreaching claims for astronomical damages.

The plaintiff music festival promoter sued several artists, their managers, and their booking agent for alleged breaches of radius clauses in performance contracts.

The defendants moved for summary judgment relying on exclusion and limitation of liability clauses in the contracts.

The court applied the Tercon framework and found the clauses valid and applicable.

The claims against the booking agent were dismissed entirely based on the exclusion clause.

The claims against one artist who cancelled due to illness and returned her deposit were dismissed because the limitation of liability clause capped damages at the premium paid, which was zero.

For the remaining artists, partial summary judgment was granted limiting any potential damages to the lesser of the premium paid or actual out-of-pocket expenses.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding the removal of animals under the OSPCA Act, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $46,561.99.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, balancing the respondent's success against the appellant's self-represented status and the financial burden of the maintenance fees.

The court fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Animal Care Review Board confirming the removal of her horses and a goat by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) due to chronic distress.

The Superior Court of Justice conducted a new hearing and found that the animals were in distress, lacking proper food, water, and veterinary care, and that the appellant had failed to comply with previous OSPCA orders.

The court upheld the removal and ordered the appellant to pay $62,554.53 in maintenance costs, deducting the costs for two horses that were mistakenly omitted from the removal notice.

A refusals motion arose during cross‑examination related to a pending summary judgment motion involving allegations that the responding party attempted to hire a hitman.

The moving party objected to questions seeking disclosure about a sealed matrimonial proceeding that allegedly involved Mareva and Anton Piller orders.

The court held the questions were irrelevant and constituted a fishing expedition aimed at embarrassing collateral matters and upheld the refusals.

The court also addressed complications arising from a witness’s alleged recantation affidavit and allegations of fabricated evidence, finding the procedural posture inappropriate for determining those issues.

In light of escalating collateral disputes and multiple related proceedings between the parties, the court stayed summary judgment motions and assumed case management over all related litigation to ensure proportional and efficient resolution.

The defendant by counterclaim, Harold Gerstel, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaim of Samuel Jacob Berkovits.

During cross-examination, Gerstel's counsel refused to answer numerous relevant questions.

Berkovits argued the court should draw an adverse inference from these refusals and find that Gerstel committed the alleged torts.

The court declined to draw such a broad inference but found it could not fairly and justly decide the summary judgment motion on the current record.

The motion was adjourned pending the completion of Gerstel's cross-examination.

Following the dismissal of two libel actions arising from statements made during a municipal election campaign, the successful defendants sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

They argued the actions were strategic lawsuits against public participation and constituted an abuse of process intended to interfere with the political process.

The court rejected the abuse of process allegation, finding the plaintiff was entitled to pursue legal remedies during an election campaign and that the evidence did not establish a political motive or distortion of the electoral process.

Adverse credibility findings against the plaintiff and litigation conduct did not justify elevated costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, emphasizing proportionality, the public interest issues involved, and reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

The plaintiff brought a libel action against a municipal councillor arising from statements made to a newspaper editorial board concerning an untendered municipal contract awarded to a corporation associated with the plaintiff.

The court held that although the statements could in law be capable of referring to the plaintiff, the reasonable reader would not conclude that they did so.

The defendant spoke only about the corporation and repeatedly stated he could not accuse anyone or pinpoint wrongdoing.

The court further found that the statements expressed suspicion of corruption without factual assertion and, when read in context, did not convey a defamatory meaning.

The plaintiff therefore failed to establish two essential elements of defamation: reference to the plaintiff and defamatory meaning.

A self-represented defendant brought a motion seeking payment out of approximately $30,000 held in court representing surplus proceeds from the power of sale of her condominium.

Counsel for the plaintiff argued the motion was moot because a prior trial decision had dismissed the action and ordered the funds paid to the plaintiff.

The moving party denied receiving notice of the trial and questioned the basis for the plaintiff’s entitlement to the surplus proceeds.

The court noted concerns about a potential injustice but observed that the record did not contain sufficient materials to assess the underlying claim.

The judge reserved decision and prepared an endorsement to assist the moving party in seeking legal advice and potential legal aid.