Eric Turkienicz

This endorsement addresses costs for two motions heard on October 22, 2019.

The Regional Municipality of Peel and Bi-Views Building Service Ltd. sought costs, while the plaintiff Aparna Sanwalka also claimed costs.

The court found Peel and Bi-View to be the more successful parties, particularly regarding the dismissal of Ms. Sanwalka's motion for examination for discovery accommodations and the necessity of Peel's motion to advance the action.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis to Peel ($2,500) and Bi-View ($750), payable by Aparna Sanwalka.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim to add Paragon Protection Ltd. as a defendant in a slip and fall action, after the apparent expiry of the limitation period.

The court applied discoverability principles under the Limitations Act, finding that the plaintiffs provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in discovering Paragon's potential liability.

Initial information from the owner's insurer and defendants' pleadings had directed the plaintiffs' focus solely to other parties responsible for winter maintenance.

The court granted leave to amend, noting that Paragon could still raise a limitations defence at trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt of court against Steven Mann for his repeated failure to comply with court orders, including attending an examination in aid of execution and providing an accounting, following a judgment for fraud.

They also sought an order compelling Cathy Huntrods, Mann's mother and business associate, to attend an examination in aid of execution.

The court found Mann in contempt, granting him a final opportunity to purge his contempt by January 15, 2019.

The motion to compel Ms. Huntrods' attendance was granted conditionally, to take effect if Mann failed to purge his contempt.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend her statement of claim to add Paragon Protection Ltd. as a defendant, responsible for security at the mall where she slipped and fell.

The proposed defendant opposed, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The court considered the discoverability doctrine under the Limitations Act, 2002, and Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence in discovering Paragon's involvement within the limitation period, as a security guard was present at the scene of the accident and identifiable.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff's motion to preserve funds under Rule 45.02 was dismissed, and the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant had delivered a Rule 49 offer to settle prior to the motion.

The court found the defendant was entitled to substantial indemnity costs but reduced the claimed hours by 50% as they were excessive and duplicative of preparation for a prior summary judgment motion.

Costs were fixed at $6,200 for fees and $500 for disbursements, plus HST.

Following a six‑day reference hearing concerning mortgage accounting and alleged defaults, the court had determined that the mortgages were in default and that the plaintiff owed a substantial sum on two outstanding mortgages, subject to minor overpayments.

The defendants sought costs of the reference.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed the relative success of the parties and their conduct during the proceeding.

Although the defendants were largely successful, the court reduced the amount sought to reflect their partial lack of success and some contribution to the length of the hearing.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff mortgagor sought relief from forfeiture and challenged the accounting and enforcement of seven mortgages held by the defendants.

A reference was ordered to determine whether defaults existed at the time notices of sale were issued and to calculate the amounts owing.

The court found technical defaults existed for all seven mortgages due to factors including unpaid property taxes, lack of insurance, and missed payments.

However, several charges claimed by the mortgagee—including legal fees and certain administrative charges—were disallowed due to insufficient evidentiary support.

The court recalculated the mortgage accounts and determined the correct balances, finding both overpayments and underpayments across the different properties.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

Evidence before the court showed that the plaintiff had outstanding judgments exceeding $1,000,000 and had filed no responding evidence demonstrating available assets.

The court held that once the defendants established the Rule 56.01(1)(d) threshold, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to prove sufficient assets, demonstrate impecuniosity, or show that its claim had a strong likelihood of success.

The plaintiff failed to meet any of these evidentiary burdens.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $15,000 as security for costs and awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs of the motion.