David S. Steinberg

The moving parties (Sprott Parties) sought to stay the responding parties' (Penfound Parties) claims as an abuse of process after discovering the responding parties had unauthorized access to and reviewed privileged emails and documents belonging to the moving parties.

The court found that the responding parties obtained access to confidential and privileged information and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

Concluding that allowing the action to proceed would be manifestly unfair and bring the administration of justice into disrepute, the court permanently stayed the responding parties' claims.

Following a successful appeal that dismissed the plaintiffs' action against the moving defendants, the issue of costs for four summary judgment motions was returned to the motion judge.

The moving defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the plaintiffs alleged fraud and failed to accept a walk-away offer.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no fraud was pleaded and the communication was not a formal offer to settle.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and noting duplication of effort among multiple defence counsel, the court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at a total of $235,000.

The plaintiffs sued a father and son after the son breached an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The son forfeited his deposit, and the plaintiffs sought further damages from the father, alleging the son acted as his agent or that the father induced the breach.

The father moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action against him.

The court granted the motion, finding no evidence of an agency relationship or that the father intended to induce a breach of contract.

The court held that partial summary judgment was appropriate to remove the father from the action, leaving only the quantification of damages against the son.

Following a series of motions and applications in a complex family estate and joint venture dispute, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Mattamy Homes for an abandoned summary judgment motion and a successfully defended summary judgment motion.

The litigation guardian was also awarded partial indemnity costs.

However, the joint attorneys for property were awarded substantial indemnity costs of $180,000 against the Bistricers, as the court found the Bistricers' conduct in the litigation to be reprehensible, duplicitous, and driven by ulterior motives.

Following summary judgment motions brought by nine defendants, which were largely dismissed but resulted in the narrowing of the plaintiffs' claims, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs sought $182,725 on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendants sought $289,249.

The court found that the plaintiffs were generally successful as the actions were not dismissed, but granted the defendants a 25% credit ($72,000) for their partial success in narrowing the issues.

The plaintiffs were awarded net costs of $100,000.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a mandatory injunction to require the defendants to remove a mass of concrete poured onto the plaintiffs' property during a home renovation.

The defendants, who were renovating the adjacent property, removed the plaintiffs' walkway and excavated soil without permission, and later poured concrete that encroached onto the plaintiffs' property when their temporary shoring failed.

The court found the defendants liable in trespass and rejected their defence of necessity.

The court adjourned the issue of the mandatory injunction pending a joint engineering report on the safety and feasibility of removing the concrete.

The defendants' counterclaim for delay damages was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved to amend its statement of claim to add two corporate defendants and assert a fraudulent conveyance claim relating to rights under a letter of intent associated with a hotel development project.

The defendant opposed the amendment on the basis of res judicata, issue estoppel, limitation periods, and abuse of process, and also sought security for costs against the plaintiff corporation.

The court held that the proposed claim was not finally adjudicated in earlier summary judgment proceedings and that the new pleading asserted a different theory based on joint venture ownership and fraudulent conveyance.

The court also rejected the limitation defence, finding the amendment motion was effectively commenced within the limitation period.

The defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff corporation was impecunious or that the action was frivolous and vexatious.

The plaintiff, a trustee in bankruptcy for a healthcare provider, brought a motion seeking to compel the defendant insurer to produce 33 former employees for examination for discovery prior to the determination of the defendant's summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff also sought the return of $350,000 paid into court as security for costs and an order prohibiting the defendant from bringing further motions.

The court granted the request for discoveries, finding that the parties had previously agreed to them in Minutes of Settlement and that the plaintiff needed the evidence to put its best foot forward on the summary judgment motion.

The requests to reduce security for costs and prohibit further motions were dismissed.

A commercial property owner sought reimbursement from a real estate brokerage for marketing and advertising expenses incurred after retaining a third-party marketing firm during a listing agreement.

The owner argued the agreement required the brokerage to bear marketing and promotional costs.

The court interpreted the agreement in light of the factual matrix and commercial reasonableness, emphasizing that external marketing costs were subject to mutual agreement and that the brokerage was engaged primarily to sell or lease real estate, not to underwrite independent marketing initiatives.

The court also considered the owner's subsequent conduct, including retaining a marketing firm without consultation and raising the reimbursement claim only after receiving a demand for signage costs.

The court concluded that the agreement did not obligate the brokerage to reimburse the owner for the claimed expenses.