Devon Marie Ryerse

The plaintiff's action for damages in excess of $5,000,000 was dismissed after a multi-week trial.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $232,663.

The plaintiff argued for no costs or a significant reduction due to his limited ability to pay and alleged duplication of effort by the defendants' counsel over the 20-year litigation history.

The court rejected the duplication argument, noting the plaintiff's responsibility for the delay, and fixed the defendants' partial indemnity costs at $225,000, considering the complexity of the case and the amount claimed.

The plaintiff, a former lawyer, sued the investigating police officer, the police services board, and the municipality for negligent investigation after he was charged with fraud, perjury, and obstructing justice.

The criminal charges were ultimately not pursued after a preliminary inquiry was terminated due to an unsworn Information.

The plaintiff claimed the charges destroyed his law practice and caused significant financial losses.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the police officer's investigation met the standard of a reasonable police officer and that there were reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's financial losses were caused by other personal and business factors, not the police investigation.

The court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to three innocent third parties following the Crown's unsuccessful forfeiture application under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties without evidence of complicity or collusion by the owners.

The court found the Crown's conduct constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable prosecution standards, including failure to conduct proper disclosure, misrepresentation to the Superior Court regarding mortgage law, and proceeding with a meritless application.

The court awarded substantial costs to FirstOntario and reduced costs to Fercan and GRVN, considering factors including proportionality, duplication of services, and the applicants' own litigation positions.

The applicants sought costs awards against the Crown following the dismissal of the Crown's forfeiture applications under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties allegedly used in connection with marijuana grow operations.

The court found that the Crown's conduct in commencing restraint and forfeiture applications against innocent third parties, without evidence of complicity or collusion, constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution.

The Crown failed to properly assess available evidence before proceeding and maintained an intransigent "hardball" attitude throughout the proceedings.

The court determined that costs awards were warranted.

Following certification of a class proceeding arising from the collapse of a shopping mall, the court determined the appropriate allocation of costs for the certification motion.

Most defendants did not oppose certification and several entered into settlement agreements regarding costs.

The court distinguished between baseline costs that would have been incurred even if certification had proceeded on consent and additional costs caused by defendants who opposed certification.

The judge concluded that $140,000 represented additional costs attributable to opposition and allocated remaining unpaid costs primarily to the provincial government, whose extensive submissions challenged multiple certification criteria.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 against one defendant and $60,000 against the provincial government, with other amounts accounted for through settlements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action following the collapse of the Algo Centre Mall roof in Elliot Lake, which killed two people and injured dozens.

The proposed class included occupants, tenants, and employees of the mall.

The defendants included the mall owners, builders, engineers, and the Province of Ontario.

The Province opposed certification, arguing it owed no private law duty of care for negligent inspection.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action for negligent inspection against the Province and that all five prerequisites for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

Following disposition of an application concerning condominium governance and alleged oppression, the court determined costs.

Although the applicant obtained a remedial order requiring the condominium corporation to comply with governance requirements under the Condominium Act, 1998, the central oppression claim concerning outdoor storage in common elements was unsuccessful.

The court found the respondents were largely successful and entitled to partial indemnity costs.

However, their costs were reduced to reflect the remedial governance order obtained at the instance of the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $12,288.48 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff corporation sought an adjournment of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for failure to comply with interlocutory orders requiring payment of costs and posting of security for costs.

The plaintiff also requested extensions of time and a reduction of the security amount.

The court considered Rules 56.06, 56.07, 57.03, and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the balance between enforcing court orders and allowing disputes to be decided on their merits.

Although the plaintiff had failed to comply with prior orders and had only partially raised the required funds, the court found limited evidence supporting a short final extension.

The court granted a final extension of time to post security for costs and pay outstanding costs but refused to reduce the security amount.

Costs decision following a civil action concerning an alleged unpaid loan.

The plaintiff claimed $60,000 in outstanding debt but was awarded only $3,000 at trial, while the defendant was found to be the primarily successful party.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs relying on authority that such costs may be appropriate where allegations of dishonesty or fraud are unproven.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, noting the unseemly nature of the underlying transaction and deficiencies in the evidence from both sides.

Costs were instead awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $10,000.