4 total
The court awarded $425,000 in costs for abuse of process but denied costs between other parties due to mutual misconduct.
This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs across six intertwined proceedings.
The court awarded Maria Konstan $425,000 in all-inclusive costs against Samuel Jacob Berkovits and Saeed Hosseini.
This award was based on Maria's successful abuse of process claim, despite her malicious prosecution claim being dismissed, and the finding of Berkovits's malicious conduct.
Conversely, no costs were awarded between Samuel Jacob Berkovits and Harold Gerstel, as both parties engaged in reprehensible conduct and attempted to mislead the court, which would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The court dismissed counterclaims for conspiracy, abuse of process, and the novel tort of harassment.
This endorsement addresses three causes of action (conspiracy, abuse of process, and harassment) advanced by the Gerstel parties in their counterclaims, which were not explicitly determined in the court's prior Reasons for Decision.
The court dismissed all three claims.
The conspiracy claim failed due to a lack of common design between the alleged conspirators.
The abuse of process claim failed because the primary objective of the opposing parties' action was to redress civil wrongs, not for a collateral purpose.
The novel tort of harassment was not recognized, as the facts of the consolidated proceedings did not meet the high threshold for creating a new legal remedy.
Multiple tort claims resolved in bitter competitor dispute involving nuisance, defamation, and abuse of process.
Six consolidated actions arising from a bitter, multi-year dispute between two competing 'cash for gold' businesses in Toronto.
The feud escalated into allegations of a 'murder for hire' plot, resulting in criminal charges against an employee that were later withdrawn.
The employee sued for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
The court found the hitman liable for malicious prosecution and both the hitman and the competitor liable for abuse of process, awarding the employee $221,775 in damages.
In the corporate actions, the court found the opposing business owner liable for nuisance and intentional interference with economic relations for using 'sandwichboarders' to harass the competitor's business, awarding $200,000.
The competitor was awarded $50,000 for defamation regarding statements made to a newspaper.
The opposing business owner's claims for defamation and misappropriation of personality were dismissed.
Motion to adjourn trial denied; defaulting witness must submit to discovery before testifying.
The Gerstel parties brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled five-week trial after the Berkovits parties indicated they intended to call Hosseini, a defaulting party who had previously failed to attend discoveries, as a witness.
The moving parties argued they would be prejudiced if forced to proceed without examining Hosseini.
The court dismissed the adjournment request to avoid further delay, but ordered that Hosseini must submit to a two-day examination for discovery prior to trial, failing which he would be barred from testifying.
