Eric Appotive

The applicants, owners of a townhouse unit in a co-tenancy development, sought declarations regarding a Co-Tenancy Agreement, specifically whether a perimeter fence and retaining wall were 'Shared Property' and whether the Co-Tenancy Committee acted in bad faith.

The court found that the Co-Tenancy Agreement was ambiguous but, based on the factual matrix and subsequent conduct of the parties, the fence and retaining wall were intended to be Shared Property.

The court also dismissed the applicants' allegations of bad faith against the committee members, finding that the committee acted in good faith and consistently sought legal advice.

Following the discontinuance of the action, the defendants brought a motion for costs.

In response, the plaintiff filed an affidavit containing correspondence regarding settlement offers.

The defendants brought a motion to strike these paragraphs, arguing they were protected by settlement privilege.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, holding that under Rule 57.01(1), written offers to settle are explicitly contemplated as admissible and relevant factors to be considered on a motion for costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 39.03 to examine the defendant, a lawyer who formerly represented the other defendants, as a witness before the hearing of the defendants' pending motion for costs.

The plaintiff sought to question the defendant regarding the timing and quantum of his legal account, which was submitted as evidence in the costs motion.

The court granted the motion, finding the evidence relevant and concluding that the defendants failed to prove the examination would be an abuse of process.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, an American corporation with no assets in Ontario.

The parties were involved in a contractual dispute over a plant relocation contract.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that it had sufficient assets in a reciprocating jurisdiction or that it was impecunious.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $5,000 into court as a partial payment of security for costs, with the issue of any additional amount to be decided by the referee.