Christopher MacLeod

The plaintiff brought an action to recognize and enforce a New York judgment against the defendants.

The defendants moved for leave to amend their statements of defence, advance crossclaims against each other, and issue third party claims against another individual named in the foreign judgment.

The court granted leave for the consented amendments regarding the voluntariness of the underlying settlement.

However, the court dismissed the motions for crossclaims and third party claims, finding them legally untenable as they improperly sought to relitigate substantive issues of contribution and indemnity that were not part of the foreign judgment.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the decisions of Hooper J. dated March 15, 2024, and C. MacLeod J. dated October 9, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the total amount of $5,200.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to each of the two responding parties.

The moving party, Juan Guillermo Gutierrez, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of McEwen J. dated December 1, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party, the Receiver, fixed at $5,000.

The moving parties' motion for leave to appeal and for a stay of various orders was dismissed as abandoned.

The court ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the Receiver.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a summary trial where judgment was granted to the plaintiff against both corporate and personal defendants for $50,000 each, plus interest, under a debenture and personal guarantee respectively.

The plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, relying on a contractual provision in the guarantee and a prior offer to settle.

The defendants argued the costs were excessive.

The court, exercising its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiff's costs reasonable and warranted a higher scale due to the defendant's failure to admit a key fact (personal guarantee) that prolonged the trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff $55,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following the dismissal of the moving parties' motion for leave to appeal, the responding parties sought costs pursuant to a consent order.

The Divisional Court awarded the responding parties costs in the amount of $7,500, all inclusive, for the appeal and motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court judge dated March 25, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding receiver in the fixed amount of $5,000.