Byrdena MacNeil

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application for a writ of possession, the self-represented respondent sought costs of $15,000 for 150 hours of his time, plus disbursements, and $50,000 in damages.

The applicants argued costs should be deferred to a fresh proceeding they had commenced.

The court awarded the respondent $2,700 in costs, finding he was entitled to a moderate allowance for time spent performing work ordinarily done by a lawyer, but reduced his claimed hours to 25.

The claim for damages was dismissed as it was not properly before the court.

The applicant's motion to remove the respondents' counsel of record was previously dismissed.

The parties could not agree on costs, and the respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the lack of merit of the motion and abusive correspondence from the applicant's representative.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and awarded the respondents costs fixed at $6,000.00, finding this amount to be fair, reasonable, and proportionate in the circumstances.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a second mortgage against the defendants' properties after a default.

The defendants argued that an oral agreement had been reached to extend the repayment time or allow payout upon the sale of the properties.

The court found no evidence of a meeting of the minds or consideration to support an oral agreement amending the mortgage.

Summary judgment was granted for the outstanding debt, interest, and possession of the properties.

The plaintiff credit union sought judgment against the defendant spouse for the net sale proceeds of a condominium previously owned by her former husband.

The husband's mortgage with the plaintiff had been mistakenly deleted from title, and upon the sale of the property, the proceeds were transferred to the defendant spouse's bank account.

The court found the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance made with the intent to defeat creditors, as there was no good consideration and the purported matrimonial settlement was not bona fide.

The court declared the transfer void and granted a tracing order under the Assignments and Preferences Act, awarding judgment to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs, Ontario residents, sued the defendant Alberta-based religious organizations for unpaid salary and breach of contract after their services to plant a church branch in Ontario were terminated.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens, relying on a forum selection clause in the Service Agreement designating Alberta.

The Superior Court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter because the defendants carried on business in Ontario.

However, the court stayed the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, finding the plaintiffs failed to show 'strong cause' to displace the clear Alberta forum selection clause.

The plaintiff sought costs of a motion for directions regarding the binding nature of an agreed summary of facts from a criminal proceeding.

The defendants sought their costs of the motion, and one defendant sought costs thrown away due to the adjournment of the trial.

The court reserved the costs of the motion to the trial judge, finding that the trial judge would be best placed to assess costs in the context of the final disposition.

The court dismissed the request for costs thrown away, as the adjournment was not the fault of any particular party.

The defendant property owner moved under the Construction Act to vacate and discharge a construction lien and certificate of action registered by a subcontractor against the subject property.

The subcontractor had performed window installation work on a condominium project and claimed its last supply date was March 14, 2025, when a worker attended the property to replace a glass pane broken during insulation removal by another party.

The court found that the subcontractor's substantive work had been completed before February 2025, that the March 2025 attendance was minor remedial repair work that did not constitute a lienable supply extending the preservation period, and that the lien was therefore registered outside the mandatory 60-day window.

The motion was granted and the lien and certificate of action were discharged and vacated, with costs of $4,000 awarded to the moving party.

The defendants' counsel notified the court that paragraph 6 of the Reasons for Decision released on October 24, 2025 incorrectly stated that two costs orders made against the plaintiff remained unpaid.

The court issued an erratum replacing paragraph 6 with corrected language detailing two costs orders totalling $12,200 against the plaintiff arising from an unsuccessful appeal and a successful defence motion for leave to amend.

The plaintiff's motion to set aside a settlement agreement based on unproven allegations of fraud and misrepresentation was dismissed.

The defendants sought costs of $49,146.53 on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiff's conduct was egregious.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, argued no costs should be awarded.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff's conduct did not reach the level of reprehensibility required, but awarded the defendants costs of $24,000 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the hours claimed by the defendants were excessive.

Estate trustees brought an application seeking leave to issue a writ of possession of a property forming part of the deceased’s estate, vacant possession, occupation rent, and damages against the surviving spouse who remained in the home.

The respondent asserted that the property was a matrimonial home and that he had a beneficial interest and possessory rights.

The court held that a writ of possession cannot issue without a prior order granting exclusive possession.

Because the parties were still spouses at the time of death and the property may constitute a matrimonial home, issues of title and possession must be determined under the Family Law Act before such remedies can be granted.

The court therefore dismissed the application, including the claims for occupation rent, damages, and vacant possession.

The applicant, a former shareholder, brought a motion to remove the respondents' lawyer as counsel of record for the corporate respondent, alleging a conflict of interest.

The applicant argued that the corporation, as a separate legal entity, required independent representation from its majority shareholders and directors in an oppression proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflict of interest because the individual respondent was the sole director and functionally the only shareholder of the corporation, resulting in an identity of interest between the corporation and its director.

In a civil costs decision following settlement of the main action, one defendant sought partial indemnity costs against the co-defendant for both the action and a crossclaim.

The court treated the hearing as a motion for costs and applied the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found the responding defendant's litigation position and delayed acceptance of the offer to settle caused unnecessary continuation of the proceeding and additional preparation costs.

While not granting the full amount requested, the court awarded an all-inclusive costs amount reflecting proportionality and the parties' relative success.

Costs decision following the landlord's successful motion to stay the tenant's application for injunctive relief and relief from forfeiture pending arbitration.

The landlord sought partial indemnity costs of $20,183.47.

The tenant argued the costs were excessive, disproportionate, and should be reserved to the arbitrator.

The court declined to reserve costs, finding it controls costs of proceedings before it and the arbitration clause might not empower the arbitrator to award such costs.

The court reduced the hours claimed due to duplicative work by three lawyers and disallowed the articling student's attendance costs, awarding $13,500.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following the successful summary dismissal of a counterclaim brought against a real estate brokerage, the court determined costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The brokerage had sought substantial indemnity costs of $21,089.91, arguing the counterclaim alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and negligence with potential reputational harm.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct, but awarded partial indemnity costs of $13,357.41 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to adjourn the scheduled trial of their action concerning well water contamination on their purchased property.

The adjournment was sought to allow the plaintiffs to complete a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.

The defendant municipality opposed the motion, arguing that the plaintiffs were precluded from taking further steps under Rule 48.04 as the action had been set down for trial.

The court granted leave under Rule 48.04, finding it was in the interests of justice, and granted the adjournment to ensure the action could be determined on its merits with the best available evidence.

The respondents were successful in defending a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued that costs should be in the cause or fixed at a lower amount on a partial indemnity scale.

The court found that the applicants' conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous, and therefore substantial indemnity costs were not warranted.

Applying the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle accident case, the court addressed three post-trial issues: (1) whether Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) payments received by the plaintiff should be deducted from the past income loss award; (2) the amount of partial indemnity costs payable; and (3) the amount of assessable disbursements.

The court held that CERB payments were not deductible as they were not paid "in respect of the incident" under the Insurance Act, and the plaintiff faced potential repayment obligations.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $327,700.00 (inclusive of HST) and allowed all claimed disbursements of $167,894.62, including expert meeting costs and home modification reports.

A self-represented plaintiff sought to set aside a settlement agreement dated March 14, 2024, whereby the defendants agreed to pay $100,000 to settle her wrongful dismissal and tort claims.

The plaintiff argued the settlement should be rescinded on grounds of lack of legal counsel, coercion, fraud and misrepresentation, breach by the defendants, and discretionary grounds.

The court found the settlement was valid and binding, that the plaintiff had adequate opportunity to seek legal advice, that no duress or illegitimate pressure was exerted, that alleged misrepresentations were not material or relied upon, and that any alleged breaches were de minimis.

The court also found the plaintiff's motion was brought with unreasonable delay.

The motion was dismissed.

A commercial tenant operating a bar and nightclub sought an urgent application for an interim and permanent injunction to prevent termination of its tenancy and to obtain relief from forfeiture.

The landlord moved to stay the application, arguing that the parties had agreed to resolve disputes through mediation and arbitration.

The court found that the dispute fell squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the lease and granted the landlord's motion to stay the application.

The court declined to grant interim injunctive relief or relief from forfeiture, finding that the alleged breaches—permitting armed individuals to enter the premises leading to a shooting incident and operating an unlicensed adult entertainment facility—were very serious in nature and that the landlord's interests could not be fully vindicated without resort to forfeiture.

A motion by a real estate brokerage to dismiss and strike a counterclaim brought against it by a self-represented defendant.

The defendant alleged that the brokerage was vicariously liable for the conduct of one of its agents in a private real estate transaction.

The court found that the agent had cancelled the listing agreements and thereafter conducted the sale and lease transactions in her personal capacity, without the brokerage's involvement or knowledge.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the counterclaim on the basis that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, that the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and that the counterclaim was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.