4 total
The court awarded the successful plaintiff $33,250 in costs, significantly reducing the claimed amount as excessive despite a contractual full indemnity provision.
The court considered costs following motions regarding possession of property and a certificate of pending litigation.
The Plaintiff sought full indemnity costs, while the Defendant argued for each party to bear their own costs or for a reduction.
The court reviewed the Bill of Costs, found the Plaintiff’s claim excessive, and awarded a reduced sum of $33,250, including disbursements, to the Plaintiff.
The decision discusses the principles for awarding costs, including contractual entitlements and the requirement that costs be fair and reasonable.
Motion for stay of mortgage enforcement dismissed, but costs denied due to respondent's inappropriate conduct.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion by Jonny’s Antiques Ltd. for a stay pending appeal in a mortgage enforcement dispute with 2642948 Ontario Inc. The court found that the grounds of appeal were weak, there was no evidence of irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.
The court also declined to award costs to 2642948 Ontario Inc. due to its conduct in accelerating the closing of the property sale without notice to Jonny’s Antiques Ltd.
The court set aside an ex parte order for a certificate of pending litigation and affirmed the mortgagee's right to peaceable possession.
The court considered competing motions regarding possession of a commercial property and the discharge of a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) in the context of a mortgage default.
The Plaintiff, a holding company, sought to set aside an ex parte order granting the CPL and to be declared in possession of the property.
The Defendant argued an oral agreement allowed indefinite interest-only payments and challenged the Plaintiff’s right to possession.
The court found the Defendant failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, that the Plaintiff was entitled to possession under the mortgage and the Mortgages Act, and that the CPL should be vacated.
The Plaintiff’s motion was granted and the Defendant’s dismissed.
Choice of forum clauses in international contracts prevail over procedural rules joining incidental actions in warranty.
A Quebec business sued a Quebec supplier in damages for failure to deliver equipment.
The supplier brought an incidental action in warranty against the German manufacturer of the equipment.
The German manufacturer moved to dismiss the action in warranty based on a choice of forum clause in its contract with the supplier, which granted exclusive jurisdiction to a German court.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the fundamental rule of party autonomy prevails over the procedural rule of a single forum, meaning the choice of forum clause must be enforced and the Quebec court must decline jurisdiction over the action in warranty.
