B. Romano

Costs decision following two motions: the plaintiff trustee in bankruptcy's summary judgment motion against the corporate defendant for unpaid invoices relating to frozen seafood products, which was dismissed, and the individual defendant's motion to dismiss the action against her personally, to which the plaintiff consented.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs based on the defendant's offer to settle, finding the offer required complete capitulation and was not a significant compromise.

Costs on a partial indemnity scale were fixed at $17,929.63 for the summary judgment motion and $2,034 for the dismissal motion, payable within 60 days.

The court determined costs following the dismissal of the applicants' application regarding legal non-conforming use of their property and the dismissal of the respondent's contempt motion.

The respondent sought over $230,000 in costs, while the applicants sought costs for the contempt motion.

The court declined to award costs to either party for the contempt motion.

For the application, the court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs fixed at $150,000, finding the requested amount too high but acknowledging the respondent's complete success.

The applicants sought a declaration of a legal non-conforming use for outdoor storage and business operations on their property, arguing the use was lawful under a 1984 zoning by-law.

The court dismissed the application, finding the use was not lawful under the by-law as it was not a home-based business occupying less than 25% of the floor area and involved the prohibited storage of goods.

The respondent municipality brought a motion for civil contempt against the applicants for breaching a 1994 order prohibiting the dumping of fill on the property.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, exercising its discretion not to make a finding of contempt because the applicants genuinely believed the fill was being offered by the municipality for a road project.

The applicants sought a declaration of a legal non-conforming use for outdoor storage and business operations on their property, arguing the use was lawful under a 1984 zoning by-law.

The court dismissed the application, finding the use was not lawful under the by-law as it was not a home-based business occupying less than 25% of the floor area and involved the prohibited storage of goods.

The respondent municipality brought a motion for civil contempt against the applicants for breaching a 1994 order prohibiting the dumping of fill on the property.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, exercising its discretion not to make a finding of contempt because the applicants genuinely believed the fill was being offered by the municipality for a road project.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's interlocutory orders dismissing their motions to remove the defendant's counsel of record and for security for costs.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant's counsel had a conflict of interest because he previously articled at the firm representing the plaintiffs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal regarding the removal of counsel, finding the appeal was out of time and, in any event, the Master did not err in allowing the counsel to argue the motion despite being an affiant, nor in refusing to remove him given the lack of confidential information possessed.

The appeal regarding security for costs was remitted back to the Master because no reasons had been provided for its dismissal.