Daniel K. Reason

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs referred back to the court following previous motions and applications.

Cheadles LLP sought substantial indemnity costs of $38,137.85, while Walter Zanewycz argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found that costs were payable by Zanewycz to Cheadles LLP due to Zanewycz's conduct, which included unfocused materials, relitigation of matters, unsubstantiated allegations, and unrealistic claims.

Costs were awarded on a substantial indemnity basis, but the quantum was reduced from the amount sought, primarily by disallowing costs for multiple solicitors and law clerk time.

The final award was $18,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

This endorsement concerns a costs decision following a motion brought by the bankrupt, Brian Wayne Flight, against the respondent trustee, Adamson & Associates Inc. The bankrupt sought document production and the examination of the trustee regarding his fourth bankruptcy.

The court found that while document verification was facilitated, the request for the trustee's examination was denied as it was for the bankrupt's personal benefit, not the creditors', and outside the core statutory purposes of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Considering the divided success and the acrimonious context of related litigation, the court determined that the respondent trustee was largely successful in resisting the examination request.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that found Trevor Bond personally guaranteed a mortgage debt and challenged the calculation of the amount due, including a "bonus" interest, and the adequacy of notice for power of sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings.

The court affirmed that objective contract interpretation applied to the personal guarantee, that the bonus interest was properly included based on the agreement, and that adequate notice for power of sale was provided.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order in favour of the respondent bank for approximately $275,000 in debt owed by a corporation and guaranteed by the appellants on a joint and several basis.

The appellants' counterclaim was based on allegations that they relied on advice from the bank's small business advisor who failed to warn them of problems in establishing and operating their Second Cup franchise.

The motion judge found the advisor played a limited role, the appellants did not rely exclusively on the advisor, and the appellants had signed documentation limiting the bank's liability.

The motion judge also found no causal connection between any alleged failures by the bank and the failure of the business.

The appeal was dismissed.