Eric Kerson

The court considered a motion for summary judgment brought by Allstate Insurance Company of Canada to determine whether William Bezemer was at least 1% liable for a motor vehicle accident involving the plaintiff, Charmaine Farrugia.

The accident involved an unidentified third driver, John Doe.

The court found that a third vehicle was involved and that Mr. Bezemer was not negligent, applying the "agony of the moment" doctrine.

The action was dismissed as against Mr. Bezemer, and costs were awarded.

The self-represented applicants successfully applied to set aside an arbitral award in favour of the respondent condominium corporation.

They sought costs of $37,814.65 on a full indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the principles for awarding costs to self-represented litigants, noting they must demonstrate they did work ordinarily done by a lawyer and incurred an opportunity cost.

Although the applicants did not prove lost remunerative activity, the court awarded them $7,500 all-inclusive to facilitate access to justice, sanction the respondent's inappropriate behaviour, and encourage settlements.

The applicants, Walter Campbell and Olakemi Sobomehin, sought to set aside an arbitral award of $30,641.72 in favour of Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2600, alleging fraud under s. 46(1) para. 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court found that while there was no actual deceit, the Condominium Corporation engaged in "constructive fraud" by misleading the Campbells into an arbitration that was purportedly about costs but actually adjudicated substantive issues the parties had agreed to remove from the dispute.

This conduct was deemed unconscionable and unfair, justifying the setting aside of the arbitral award.

The Condominium Corporation's cross-applications to enforce the award were dismissed.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a costs award made by the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The Tribunal had dismissed the respondent's claim but awarded $200 in costs against the successful appellant because the claim was novel and the respondent was not unreasonable in pursuing it.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while novelty and reasonableness might justify not awarding costs against an unsuccessful party, they do not justify awarding costs against a successful party absent bad faith or misconduct.

The costs order was set aside.

This appeal arose from a decision granting partial summary judgment in a construction lien dispute.

The appellants (Larson Properties Partnership Group and Kevin Gary Larson) challenged the motion judge's finding of no genuine issue requiring a trial and the appropriateness of partial summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the determination that a genuine issue did not exist and that the partial summary judgment was appropriate given subsequent resolutions of other aspects of the litigation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued that the notice of termination was invalid because it was signed by the landlord's property manager, and that section 43(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act requires an agent to be licensed by the Law Society of Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's interpretation that the Act does not define 'agent' and does not require an agent signing a notice of termination to be licensed to provide legal services.

The Applicants sought costs after the Respondent failed to comply with prior court orders to vacate and transfer his interest in a jointly owned property.

The parties resolved the underlying motion for consequential relief, but the issue of costs remained.

The court found the Applicants were entitled to costs due to the Respondent's non-compliance, rejecting the argument that counsel's withdrawal absolved him of his obligations.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,000 to the Applicants, noting the motion was simple and virtually guaranteed of success, warranting a reduction from the amount sought.

The plaintiffs sought a contempt order against the Tecumseh defendants for failing to produce a representative for examination for discovery as per a prior court order.

The defendants argued that their designated representative, Mr. Goldin, was unable to attend due to a recent cancer diagnosis.

The court found that while the order was clear and known to the defendants, the plaintiffs failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants' non-compliance was intentional, given Mr. Goldin's medical difficulties and the defendants' subsequent efforts to propose alternative solutions.

The motion for contempt was dismissed.

Following the discontinuance of an action by the plaintiff bank regarding a mortgage fraud, the defendant brought a motion seeking full indemnity costs and $100,000 in punitive damages for abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiff's initial pursuit of the action was reasonable given the circumstances of the fraud investigation and the defendant's refusal to provide requested banking records.

The court declined to award punitive damages, finding the plaintiff's conduct was not high-handed or malicious, and awarded the defendant costs fixed at $12,000.