3 total
The court fixed the successful defendants' partial indemnity costs at $230,000 following the dismissal of the plaintiff's injunction motion.
This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an interim/interlocutory injunction.
The court was asked to fix the partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff to the successful defendants.
The decision reviews the parties' costs outlines, considering the complexity and importance of the issues, the time spent by counsel, and the applicable factors under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court fixed the defendants' partial indemnity costs at $230,000.
Interlocutory injunction for alleged breach of confidence dismissed; security for costs granted against plaintiff.
The plaintiff, Vaultose Digital Asset Services Inc., sought an interim and interlocutory worldwide injunction to restrain the defendants from developing, monetizing, using, or disclosing technology related to the "QDS Platform" alleging breach of confidentiality covenants.
The defendants, including Tilo Kunz and William Yakamovich, denied misuse of confidential information, asserting their work relied on public knowledge and prior experience.
Concurrently, the defendants moved for security for costs.
The court applied the "strong prima facie case" test for the injunction due to its intrusive nature.
The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of confidence or misuse of confidential information, noting the vagueness of the alleged information and lack of specific evidence.
The injunction motion was dismissed.
The defendants' motion for security for costs was granted, with the plaintiff ordered to pay $121,000 in security for anticipated partial indemnity costs through discovery and mediation, plus $25,000 for the security for costs motion.
The court enforced a commercial lease provision entitling the successful landlords to substantial indemnity costs.
This costs endorsement followed a successful application by commercial landlords (Applicants) against Cerieco Canada Corp., a second indemnifier, for payment of garnished funds and outstanding rent.
Cerieco unsuccessfully defended the application.
The Applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, as contractually provided in the lease.
The court found no "good reason" to deviate from the contractual right to costs, despite the court's inherent discretion.
The Applicants were awarded $56,000 in all-inclusive costs.
