Chantal Beaupre

The Plaintiff, 2449442 Ontario Inc., was awarded $82,752 at trial in a construction lien case, while the Defendant, Cambridge Drywall Services LTD. (CDS), succeeded on its counterclaim for $30,000, resulting in a net recovery of $52,752 for the Plaintiff.

CDS successfully defended against 87% of the Plaintiff's total claim.

This decision addresses the parties' claims for costs.

The court considered factors under Rule 57, including divided success and CDS's offer to settle, which, though not compliant with Rule 49.10(2) due to timing, exceeded the Plaintiff's net recovery.

The court also addressed the applicability of simplified procedure rules under the Construction Act.

Ultimately, the court ordered CDS to pay the Plaintiff $100,000 in costs plus HST and disbursements, reflecting a reduction from the Plaintiff's claimed costs due to the divided success and CDS's reasonable, albeit non-compliant, offer.

The applicants sought to lift a stay of proceedings to enforce a prior summary judgment order for $102,500 against the respondents, who had filed a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicants argued the debt fell under exceptions for discharge (fraud, misrepresentation, or fiduciary defalcation) under s. 178(1) of the BIA.

The court reviewed the original application, the 2017 order, and new evidence, finding no basis for fraud, misrepresentation, or a fiduciary relationship.

The court concluded that the debt was a simple breach of contract and therefore dischargeable in bankruptcy.

The motion to lift the stay was dismissed as the applicants failed to demonstrate material prejudice or other equitable grounds.

The plaintiffs, having been awarded damages for civil fraud and misrepresentation regarding a septic system and retaining wall, sought full or substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants argued for no costs or reduced costs, citing partial success of the plaintiffs' claims and their own settlement offers.

The court, considering the defendants' objectionable conduct, including civil fraud and high-handed actions post-transaction, awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The court balanced the plaintiffs' partial success and some inefficiencies against the defendants' conduct and failure to make reasonable offers.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendants.

The defendants sought $45,380.73 in costs, while the plaintiff argued for $9,000.

The court fixed costs at an all-inclusive sum of $17,500, payable forthwith by the plaintiff to the defendants.

The decision considered factors under Rule 57.01(1), a Rule 49 offer, and the principle from Boucher v. Public Accountant Council for Ontario that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than solely reflecting the successful litigant's actual incurred costs.

This was a motion for summary judgment by eight of the named defendants (six holding companies and two individual directors) in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendants sought to dismiss claims against them, arguing they were not 'common and related employers' and that the corporate veil should not be pierced for the individual directors.

The court applied principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin for summary judgment motions, and considered the common employer doctrine and personal liability of corporate officers.

The motion was granted, dismissing the claims against the individual directors due to no evidence of fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or want of authority, and against the holding companies as they did not exercise effective control over the plaintiff's employment.