Catherine DiMarco

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' action due to repeated non-compliance with numerous court orders, including failure to pay security for costs and outstanding costs awards.

The court dismissed Betty Dale's action, citing her blatant disregard for court orders and lack of participation.

The Estate of Sadie Moranis was granted a final conditional indulgence due to ongoing health issues of its representative, requiring compliance with specific orders by September 30, 2019, failing which its action would also be dismissed.

Betty Dale was ordered to pay $51,500 in total costs to the defendants.

The applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity scale following a decision granting declaratory relief for property access under a development agreement.

The respondent argued the application was unnecessary and sought its own costs.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, as it obtained a significant remedy allowing it to proceed with remediation.

The court fixed the applicant's costs at $58,467.33 on a partial indemnity scale, finding the time spent and hourly rates reasonable.

The applicant, a residential subdivision developer, sought an order to access Phase 2 of its development through Campania Court for remediation, servicing, and maintenance, which the City of Vaughan had blocked.

The applicant relied on common law right of access, improper exercise of municipal discretion, and a contractual right under a Development Agreement.

The court found that material facts were in dispute regarding the common law right and the exercise of discretion, requiring these claims to proceed to trial.

However, the court granted the applicant's request based on a contractual right under Section 4 of the Development Agreement, which allowed for the import and export of heavy equipment that could not safely maneuver through Phase 1 lands.

The City was ordered to facilitate this access, including removing physical barriers, but the order did not extend to hauling waste materials.

The plaintiffs' home was flooded twice due to a cast iron water main breaking in front of their driveway.

They sued the City of Vaughan for negligence and nuisance.

The City argued its failure to replace the water main was a policy decision exempt from liability under the Municipal Act.

The court found the City's inaction was an operational decision, as it failed to follow its own internal barometer for replacing water mains with a history of breaks.

The City was found liable for negligence, and the plaintiffs were awarded agreed-upon damages of $480,000.

The individual defendants sought costs for two successful motions to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim and amended claim.

The plaintiff argued success was divided because leave to amend was granted, and that the costs claimed were excessive.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the defendants were substantially successful.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no egregious misconduct by the plaintiff.

Applying the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court awarded the individual defendants $18,052.30 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

In a construction lien reference involving multiple solar farm projects, the defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff contractor.

The plaintiff corporation had ceased operations and possessed no assets other than potential recoveries from ongoing litigation, making any future costs judgment likely unenforceable.

The court held that the threshold under Rule 56.01(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure was met and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that ordering security would be unjust.

Arguments relating to delay, counterclaims, and alleged defendant-caused impecuniosity were rejected or given limited weight.

Exercising its discretion and balancing proportionality concerns, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the amount of $225,000.

The owner of leased commercial premises moved under the Construction Lien Act to declare three construction liens invalid and to discharge security posted to vacate them, arguing the lien claimants failed to correctly identify the owner in their claims for lien.

The court considered whether the naming errors constituted non‑compliance with s. 34(5) of the Act or merely a failure to strictly comply curable under s. 6.

The evidence showed the tenant owner had used multiple corporate and unregistered names and had not registered certain business names, contributing to confusion about the proper legal entity.

The court held that the errors—misplacing the owner’s name in the electronic form or naming related Equinox entities—were failures to strictly comply but not fatal defects, and no prejudice was established.

Motions to discharge the liens were dismissed and the lien claimants were permitted to amend pleadings to correctly name the tenant owner.