Clifford Weibel Lloyd

The applicant sought to extend an interlocutory motion and an interim injunction.

The respondent opposed, alleging the applicant failed to disclose material facts on the initial ex parte motion.

The court found the CaseLines file disorganized, with duplicate materials and non-compliant factums from both parties, making it unprepared for a hearing.

The motion was adjourned, and the existing injunctions were extended without prejudice.

The court issued strict directions for both parties to reorganize their filings, including deleting duplicates, filing compliant factums with proper citations and hyperlinks, preparing bookmarked compendiums, and filing a joint motion confirmation form, emphasizing adherence to the Rules of Civil Procedure and practice directions regarding hearing preparation and material submission.

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of an interlocutory motion brought by the respondent (Greg) seeking to transfer the applicant's (Suzanne's) shares in the family farm corporation.

The court found the respondent's conduct, including non-compliance with court orders, financial disclosure failures, and litigation tactics, amounted to bad faith and litigation bullying.

Consequently, the court awarded full indemnity costs of $24,113.64 to the applicant, emphasizing that such egregious conduct warranted sanction.

The appellants appealed a summary motion judge's decision dismissing their negligence claim against a lawyer and a related costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that a lawyer cannot be held liable for negligence when conducting a discovery in accordance with a court direction, even if an unfortunate event occurs.

Leave to appeal the costs order was granted, but that appeal was also dismissed, as the costs order fell within the broad discretion of the summary motion judge.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order that dismissed their action for delay.

The action, initiated in 2012, sought $5,000,000 in damages against the City of Hamilton related to land development and an alleged 2005 agreement.

The court applied the four Reid factors to determine if the dismissal order should be set aside.

The plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the significant litigation delay, did not establish that the deadline was missed through inadvertence, and the court found a strong presumption of prejudice to the defendant due to the passage of time and the evolving nature of the plaintiffs' claim.

Consequently, the motion to set aside the dismissal order was denied, and the City was presumptively entitled to its costs.