Edward F. P. Hung

Following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion brought by the defendants, the successful party sought substantial indemnity costs of $23,365.28.

The unsuccessful parties argued that costs should be assessed on a partial indemnity basis and limited to $4,500, asserting the claimed time and staffing were excessive.

The court applied the principles governing costs awards and considered the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including duplication of effort and prior costs already determined for earlier related motions.

While recognizing the successful party’s entitlement to costs and the importance of the summary judgment motion, the court found the claimed amount excessive and reduced it.

The court fixed fair and reasonable costs at $9,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for a one-quarter share of the assets of a family business operated in China.

The defendants argued there was no evidence or corporate documentation supporting the plaintiff's legal entitlement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial due to conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the business, the existence of an oral agreement among family members, and the defendants' failure to provide adequate documentary disclosure.

Following a motion concerning jurisdiction, the successful party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,178.02, alleging misconduct by the opposing parties and excessive motion preparation requirements.

The responding parties argued that costs should be limited to the jurisdiction issue and capped at a substantially lower amount.

Applying the principles governing costs and the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that substantial indemnity was not justified and that the claimed costs were excessive and duplicative.

The court fixed costs at a reduced amount it considered fair and reasonable for an unsuccessful party to have expected to pay.

The defendants brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court over a dispute concerning alleged misappropriation of assets from a family business operating in China.

The plaintiff alleged that corporate assets and funds had been transferred from China to Ontario and sought an accounting and compensation.

Applying the presumptive connecting factors framework from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that the defendants’ domicile in Ontario established a prima facie basis for jurisdiction.

The defendants failed to rebut the presumption or demonstrate that China was a clearly more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The court therefore held that Ontario had jurisdiction and adjourned the defendants’ summary judgment motion.