Dr. Ran He

The Defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, ordinarily resident outside Ontario and lacking sufficient assets in Ontario, was ordered to post security for costs.

The court applied Rule 56.01(1) holistically, considering factors such as the plaintiff's residence, lack of assets, and the merits of the claim, which were not found to have a good chance of success.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument of delay by the defendants.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff established a real estate partnership, the plaintiff sought costs.

The defendant opposed, arguing costs should wait until the ordered accounting was complete, but failed to submit his own bill of costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff her full claimed partial indemnity costs and disbursements, noting her significant success, the complexity of the matter, and the reasonable fees charged by her counsel.

A case conference was held to discuss the process for an upcoming mini trial.

The court directed the parties to exchange witness lists, proposed evidence, and any additional materials by January 20, 2024, emphasizing the principle of proportionality.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration of a 50% beneficial ownership interest in a property and a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from interfering with her use of the property due to alleged assaults.

The defendant disputed the partnership and the assaults, claiming the plaintiff made false police reports.

The court found that the assault allegations raised a credibility issue and directed a one-day mini-trial under Rule 20 to hear oral evidence from the parties.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a previously dismissed motion by the plaintiffs for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The defendant, having successfully opposed the CPL, sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court awarded the defendant $24,000 in costs, finding it fair and reasonable.

The decision emphasized that costs should follow the event and that the plaintiffs' delay in bringing the original motion, which necessitated an urgent and expedited process, contributed to the increased costs.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the subsequent failure of the third-party sale, which was the basis for the original motion's urgency, should negate the costs award, as this was not known at the time of the motion's disposition.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant and its director for repayment of two loans and associated fees.

The court found that the fees charged on the loans amounted to effective interest rates of 150% and 180%, which exceeded the criminal rate of interest under the Criminal Code.

The court set aside the fees under the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act but granted summary judgment for the principal amount of the loans.

The court also found the director personally liable as a guarantor, as she signed the promissory note without indicating she was signing solely in a corporate capacity.

Following a successful trial for breach of contract regarding a real estate joint venture, the plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff had made a formal offer to settle that was lower than the trial judgment.

Applying Rule 49.10, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court found the claimed hours and rates reasonable and ordered the defendant to pay $45,757.27 in costs.

The plaintiffs, having succeeded on a summary judgment motion in a real estate transaction dispute, sought costs.

The court determined the application of Rule 49.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which dictates costs consequences for unaccepted offers to settle.

The defendants argued that a non-disparagement clause in the plaintiffs' offer to settle rendered it invalid for Rule 49.10 purposes.

The court found the non-disparagement provision to be clear and not unreasonable, distinguishing it from cases where an offer's terms were vague or uncertain.

As the judgment obtained by the plaintiffs was more favourable than their offer, they were awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court fixed costs at $33,039.76, considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and the principle of fairness and reasonableness.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in an action for damages arising from the defendants' failure to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendants argued the agreement was void due to issues with a power of attorney, misrepresentation of square footage, and failure to provide a survey.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability or mitigation of damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for forfeiture of the deposit and damages for the loss in property value and increased commission fees upon resale.