B. Teplitsky

Following a successful trial regarding the default of an asset purchase agreement, the plaintiffs sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that while both parties contributed to the lengthy litigation, the plaintiffs were entitled to costs on the higher end of the partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs' offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49 consequences as it was not as favourable as the judgment obtained.

The court fixed costs at $137,812.65 and waived the six-month waiting period to enforce the writ of seizure and sale, but declined to order that the judgment survive bankruptcy.

In an ongoing assessment of a solicitor's costs, the client sought to introduce evidence of an allegedly improperly commissioned 2015 affidavit and the solicitor's counsel's disciplinary history in Tennessee to attack the solicitor's credibility regarding a 2008 affidavit.

The court ruled the evidence inadmissible, enforcing a prior agreement between the parties not to litigate the 2015 affidavit.

The court also found the evidence failed the test for similar fact evidence and its admission would be highly prejudicial as it would force the solicitor's counsel to become a witness and remove himself from the record.

The client brought a motion to permanently stay the assessment of its former solicitor's accounts, alleging the solicitor intentionally deleted relevant electronic files from her laptop in breach of a preservation order.

The court found that the allegations involved significant credibility issues and conflicting expert evidence regarding the spoliation of evidence.

Applying principles analogous to summary judgment, the court concluded that a stay was a draconian remedy that could not be granted without a full hearing with viva voce evidence.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to the client's right to renew the arguments at a full hearing before a Superior Court judge.

Multiple related motions arose from litigation concerning the sale of assets of a mulch and container business.

The moving parties sought extensive relief including summary judgment, contempt findings, setting aside an Anton Piller order, injunctive relief, venue transfer, and procedural directions across three related proceedings.

The court set aside the Anton Piller order and ordered seized materials returned, transferred certain proceedings from Toronto to Barrie, and consolidated two related matters to streamline litigation.

Requests for summary judgment, contempt findings, removal of counsel, and additional injunctive relief were largely dismissed due to insufficient evidentiary foundation or procedural defects.

The court concluded that several issues required trial and directed administrative steps regarding prior orders.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party due to mixed success.