Douglas Christie

Following an 11-day trial where the plaintiffs were successful, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.

The plaintiffs had made multiple offers to settle that were more favourable than the trial judgment.

Applying Rule 49.10(1) and Rule 57.01(1), the court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $724,850.49, noting the defendants' unreasonable positions during the litigation.

Several nephrologists practiced together in a partnership and provided services at a hospital.

The hospital paid funds to a corporation controlled by three of the partners, excluding two other partners from their share.

The excluded partners discovered this arrangement and sued for unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found that the defendants were unjustly enriched and ordered them to pay compensatory damages based on the plaintiffs' proportionate contributions to overhead, as well as punitive damages for abusing their positions of trust.

The defendant appealed an Associate Justice's order dismissing his motion for security for costs.

The defendant argued the Associate Justice erred by not drawing an adverse inference from the plaintiff's failure to respond to a Rule 56.02 demand and by misapprehending evidence regarding the plaintiff's assets and residency.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's conclusion that the defendant failed to meet the initial burden under Rule 56.01.

The costs award of $8,000 to the plaintiff was also upheld.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the plaintiff corporation had insufficient assets in Ontario, resided outside Ontario, and brought a frivolous action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant failed to meet the initial onus of showing a good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets or resided outside the province.

The court also found the action was not obviously frivolous, as there was documentary evidence corroborating the plaintiff's claim of an oral profit-splitting agreement.

The defendant brought a successful motion to stay a 2019 action as an abuse of process and to consolidate it with a 2017 action.

The defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing a Rule 49 offer, the plaintiff's lack of good faith, and uncooperative conduct.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding it appropriate to clear the costs slate and apply normal principles.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $70,000.

The minority shareholder of a family company commenced an action for an oppression remedy and asserted a derivative claim without obtaining leave.

The minority shareholder's holding company later commenced an action in debt against the family company.

The defendant in the first action moved to stay the second action as an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion to stay, instead ordering the two actions consolidated.

However, the court struck the derivative claim without leave to amend, finding it misconceived, ill-advised, and not brought in good faith.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs of $25,526, including a request that costs be paid personally by the plaintiff's counsel.

The court found the requested amount disproportionate to the issue and time incurred, and declined to order costs against counsel personally.

The court fixed costs at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the plaintiff.

Judgment creditors brought a motion seeking production of a law firm’s books, trust records, bank statements, and documents relating to mortgages held in trust for the debtor, and asserted that the mortgage interests themselves were garnishable debts.

The court considered whether mortgage interests held in trust constituted “debts payable” under r. 60.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and whether the requested records could be compelled under r. 60.18(6).

The court held that a mortgage interest in land is not a liquidated money demand and therefore not a debt subject to garnishment until converted into money.

It further held that the broad documentary disclosure sought would breach solicitor-client privilege and no recognized exception justified disclosure.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a lengthy commercial dispute and trial judgment, the defendants wrote to the court alleging a calculation error in the trial decision and seeking informal remediation without bringing a formal motion.

The court considered whether to exercise its authority under r. 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to amend, set aside, or vary the order.

Emphasizing the strong policy of finality in litigation and the narrow scope of the rule, the court held that such powers should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances.

The proposed recalculation was considered too complex and inappropriate to undertake at that late stage.

The court declined to revisit the judgment and noted the parties had remedies elsewhere.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking to vary a consent judgment and amend a statement of claim, the court determined costs payable to the successful defendants.

One defendant sought costs payable forthwith, while the plaintiff argued any award should be set off against an outstanding amount owed under a prior consent judgment.

The court held that the costs award and the debt under the consent judgment were liquidated mutual obligations, requiring legal set‑off.

Costs payable to that defendant were therefore credited against the amount owed under the consent judgment, while costs payable to the other defendant were ordered payable forthwith.

The court also assessed the reasonable quantum of costs under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Following a lengthy oppression remedy trial involving a shareholder dispute in a real estate investment company, the court determined the appropriate costs award and interest payable after judgment.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $1.3 million, alleging reprehensible litigation conduct by the defendants.

The court rejected the request for elevated costs and held that partial indemnity costs were appropriate, emphasizing proportionality, the plaintiffs’ limited success compared to the amounts claimed, and duplication resulting from multiple counsel.

The court also addressed costs related to several pretrial motions, expert witness fees, and disbursements, reducing certain expert accounts and awarding the defendants $5,000 for a post‑judgment remediation motion.

Prejudgment and postjudgment interest were fixed under the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff, a minority shareholder in a closely held real estate joint venture, brought an oppression action against the majority shareholders.

The dispute arose after the plaintiff was forced to resign as a director following allegations of misappropriating a minor corporate opportunity.

Subsequently, the defendants made two cash calls and granted a mortgage that significantly diluted the plaintiff's interest in the corporation.

The court found that the defendants' actions, particularly the granting of a mortgage for an amount greater than the corporation's immediate needs, unfairly disregarded the plaintiff's interests and constituted oppression under s. 248 of the OBCA.

The court ordered the defendants to buy out the plaintiff's shares at a valuation of $858,468.31, awarded the plaintiff a portion of a deferred management fee, and ordered two of the defendants to pay $25,000 in punitive damages for their reprehensible conduct.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against their long-time accountant and his corporation for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

The accountant had advised the plaintiffs to invest over $1 million in his own unregistered pooled mortgage fund, granting his corporation absolute discretion over the funds without disclosing the lack of regulatory safeguards or advising them to seek independent legal advice.

The court found the accountant and his corporation breached their fiduciary duties and contracts, and awarded restitutionary damages of $1,074,716 plus substantial indemnity costs.

Following a motion concerning whether to set aside a default judgment or reduce an interest rate, the court had awarded costs to the plaintiff.

After judgment, the defendants argued that a prior Rule 49 offer to settle matched the result and therefore disentitled the plaintiff to costs while entitling the defendants to their costs of the motion.

The court held that the cost consequences regime under Rule 49.10 does not apply to motions to set aside default judgments in the same manner as trial judgments.

The defendants therefore could not rely on the offer to alter the costs determination.

The previously ordered costs award in favour of the plaintiff was confirmed.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and, alternatively, sought security for costs under Rule 56.01(d).

The court held that a pleading need not expressly name a cause of action provided it pleads sufficient material facts to support a recognized legal claim.

While the claim adequately pleaded causes of action including knowing assistance and inducing breach of contract, the allegation of fraud was materially deficient because it failed to provide particularized allegations against each moving party as required by Rule 25.06(8).

The court struck the fraud allegation with leave to amend but dismissed the remainder of the motion.

The request for security for costs was also dismissed because the evidence of a small PPSR registration did not establish good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets to satisfy a potential costs award.

Following dismissal of a motion for an interlocutory injunction, the respondent municipality sought costs against the unsuccessful applicant.

The applicant argued she should be treated as a public interest litigant and shielded from adverse costs due to limited financial means and alleged broader public importance of the litigation.

The court held that public interest status does not exempt litigants from ordinary cost rules and found the case did not meet the recognized criteria for public interest litigation.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court awarded partial indemnity costs but reduced the claimed amount due to concerns that the municipality’s bill included costs related to other steps in the proceeding.

Costs were fixed at $4,700 payable forthwith.

A municipal resident brought a motion under s.273(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 seeking an interlocutory order restraining the city from continuing stormwater management construction associated with the abandonment of a municipal drain.

The applicant argued that the by-law abandoning the drain was invalid because the city failed to follow public consultation procedures allegedly required by its Official Plan after an environmental impact study was prepared.

The court held that the traditional three-part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR‑MacDonald applies to relief sought under s.273(4).

Although the applicant raised a serious issue to be tried, she failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience strongly favoured the municipality due to substantial financial and contractual consequences of halting ongoing construction.

The motion for interlocutory injunctive relief was dismissed.