Christopher Thiesenhausen

This endorsement addresses costs following a motion where the defendant Lida Zhang successfully obtained an order staying enforcement of a judgment against him by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

Zhang sought partial indemnity costs from the Fund, arguing he was the successful party.

The Fund contended success was divided and cited its statutory function.

The court found Zhang was successful against the Fund and awarded him $39,096.65 in partial indemnity costs, declining to apply Rule 49 for substantial indemnity due to issues with Zhang's settlement offer.

The moving party, an employee who drove a tour bus involved in a pedestrian collision, sought to set aside or stay a judgment entered against him.

Unbeknownst to him, his employer's vehicle was uninsured, he was never served with the statement of claim, and the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund had taken over the defence and settled the action for $231,068.

The court declined to set aside the judgment due to the prejudice it would cause the plaintiff and the Fund's statutory framework.

However, the court granted a stay of execution against the employee, finding it would be unjust to enforce the judgment against him given his reasonable belief that the commercial vehicle was insured and his complete lack of knowledge of the litigation.

Following convictions for lottery fraud, the Crown sought restitution, forfeiture, and fines in lieu of forfeiture against the accused.

The court ordered restitution of $12.5 million jointly and severally against the two primary offenders, declining to add interest.

The court also ordered forfeiture of approximately $7.5 million in seized funds, after returning specific amounts to innocent third parties.

Finally, the court imposed fines in lieu of forfeiture of $2.3 million each on the two primary offenders, with a six-year term of imprisonment in default of payment.

Following a reference regarding a partnership dispute and an application for partition and sale, the applicant sought costs.

The court determined that the costs of the partition application benefited all partners and ordered them paid from the partnership's net sale proceeds on a partial indemnity basis.

For the reference, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs against one respondent and substantial indemnity costs against the other respondent from the date of an unaccepted offer to settle.

The applicant and respondents were equal partners in a mixed-use commercial and residential property.

Following a court-ordered sale of the property, a reference was held to conduct an accounting of expenses and profits to determine the distribution of the net sale proceeds.

The court determined the partners' respective liabilities for rental arrears, renovation cost overruns, ongoing property expenses paid by the applicant, and equipment removal costs.

Applying the Partnership Act, the court found that the renovation and property expenses were partnership debts to be shared equally, while specific rental arrears and equipment removal costs were personal to the respective respondents.

The net proceeds of $396,824.51 were distributed accordingly, with the applicant receiving the majority share due to her significant financial contributions to the property's expenses.