Craig Vander Zee

The defendants sought costs following a successful summary judgment motion that dismissed the plaintiff's action based on a prior settlement and release.

The release stipulated that any party breaching it would be liable for costs on a 'solicitor and his own client scale.' The court held that this phrase is synonymous with full indemnity costs, distinguishing prior case law that equated it with substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded full indemnity costs, fixing them at $70,235.52 for one defendant and $110,000 for the other two defendants, reducing the latter's claim due to overstaffing.

The Richmond Hill Zone Hockey Association (RHZHA) sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against the Ontario Minor Hockey Association (OMHA) and the Ontario Hockey Federation (OHF).

The RHZHA aimed to prevent the OMHA from dissolving its AAA Level hockey zone and to compel the OHF to reopen its application to transfer membership to the Greater Toronto Hockey League (GTHL).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the RHZHA would suffer irreparable harm, much of it had already occurred due to delay.

The court also determined that the balance of convenience favored the OMHA's decision to consolidate zones for the overall benefit of minor hockey, and that the Hockey Canada National Appeals Committee's adverse decision on the OHF's policy interpretation weakened the applicant's case for a mandatory injunction.

An appeal from a motion judge's order rectifying a will to correct a drafting error.

The estate trustee sought to correct the will to reflect the deceased's intention to liquidate sufficient shares to provide two children with $1 million each.

The widow, who did not challenge the will and elected to take under it, appealed the rectification order and sought leave to appeal the costs disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in principle and that the factual findings were amply supported by evidence.

Leave to appeal costs was denied.

Following earlier reasons setting aside a Report and Certificate of Assessment and directing a new assessment, the court considered competing submissions on costs.

Although the clients succeeded on the issue of lack of service of the assessment hearing, the court found their evidence unreliable and declined to award them costs.

The court determined there was no bona fide dispute regarding the retainer and that the creditor had been wholly successful on that issue.

The court further criticized the clients for strategically amending their motion after the creditor refused to consent to the relief sought.

A modest costs award was ordered against two of the clients.