E. Moore

Following a trial in a commercial lease dispute where the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the defendant landlord's counterclaim was allowed, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on the terms of the commercial lease.

The court found that the lease established a contractual entitlement to recovery of legal costs on a solicitor-client scale.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments to limit costs to the Small Claims Court scale, noting the plaintiffs chose to commence a Superior Court action.

Costs were fixed at $65,000.00 on a substantial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff tenants brought an action against their former landlord for breach of contract and wrongful distress after the landlord issued a Notice of Distress for unpaid rent.

The tenants claimed that a maintenance employee of the landlord had signed a 'letter of forgiveness' and a short-form lease that eliminated their past debts.

The court found that the employee had no actual or apparent authority to bind the landlord, and the landlord's subsequent administrative actions did not constitute acceptance of the unsigned lease.

The court held that the landlord was entitled to distrain the tenants' goods due to significant rent arrears, and the distress was not excessive.

The tenants' action was dismissed, and the landlord's counterclaim for unpaid rent and other charges was allowed.

The respondents brought a motion to stay the applicant's oppression application and to release funds held in trust from the sale of a corporate property.

The parties were bound by a shareholder agreement containing a broad arbitration clause.

The applicant argued the dispute involved fraud and third-party creditor claims that fell outside the arbitration clause.

The court found the arbitration clause was broad enough to encompass the disputes, including allegations of oppressive conduct and fraud, and stayed the application.

The court also ordered the release of $150,000 from the trust funds to the respondents for living expenses and arbitration funding, plus an amount to cover capital gains tax.

The defendants (Smith Defendants) brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel (McLean) due to an alleged conflict of interest and to prevent the use of allegedly privileged documents.

The plaintiffs (Milicevic/Mazzone) brought cross-motions to remove the defendants' counsel (Rapley), to amend their pleadings, and for orders regarding document production and privilege.

The court dismissed both motions to remove counsel, finding no compelling reason to interfere with the parties' choice of counsel and noting the tactical nature of the motions.

The court also ruled on the privilege of various documents, finding that joint retainer documents were not privileged as between the joint clients, and permitted the plaintiffs to amend their cross-claim in the Toronto action while denying the withdrawal of their indemnity claim in the Brampton action.

Following the dismissal of a motion for leave to appeal, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The responding party conceded entitlement to costs but argued the amount claimed was excessive, particularly with respect to legal research disbursements.

Applying the fairness and reasonableness principles under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed the competing submissions and fixed costs at an amount lower than requested but higher than the amount proposed by the responding party.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.