3 total
The court awarded the successful applicant $380,000 in partial indemnity costs following a complex shareholder dispute, declining to award substantial indemnity.
This costs endorsement followed previous judgments in consolidated applications concerning a shareholder dispute.
The court had dismissed the Cornacchia Group’s application and allowed, in part, Michael Cotic’s application, making Cotic the overall successful party.
Cotic sought substantial indemnity costs, or alternatively, partial indemnity costs under Rule 49.
The Cornacchia Group argued for apportioned costs or no reimbursement for disbursements.
The court declined to award substantial indemnity, finding that allegations of fraud arose from Cotic's sloppy record-keeping rather than deliberate misconduct, and that Cotic's Rule 49 offer was not more favourable than the judgment obtained.
The court also found the Cornacchia Group's actions did not unnecessarily prolong proceedings.
Cotic was awarded partial indemnity costs, assessed at $380,000, payable forthwith, jointly and severally by the Cornacchia Group, with a right of set-off against the purchase price of their interests in the Corporation.
Binding investment agreement breached; damages awarded for lost business opportunity.
An investor that had acquired the rights of a bankrupt Indigenous‑owned technology company sued a software corporation for breach of contract arising from a failed strategic partnership.
The plaintiff alleged the defendant committed to invest $1.5 million and provide technological support but later withdrew, causing the company’s collapse.
The court found a binding agreement was formed through oral approval and a confirming letter, and that the defendant’s internal corporate approval issues did not negate the contract.
Alleged misrepresentations regarding finances, market size, and potential investors were rejected.
Applying a modified valuation based on projected business plans and discounting for risk, the court awarded damages for the lost business opportunity.
Applicant awarded substantial and partial indemnity costs after largely succeeding in family law trial.
Following a lengthy family law trial addressing equalization of net family property, retroactive and ongoing child support, extraordinary expenses under s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and related property claims, the court determined the issue of costs.
Although the parties shared some success regarding valuation of the applicant’s business and equalization, the applicant was substantially successful on the majority of issues including retroactive child support and related claims.
The court found that the respondent acted unreasonably during the litigation, causing delays and prolonging the trial through incomplete financial disclosure and late expert evidence.
Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant a mix of partial and substantial indemnity costs reflecting her success and the respondent’s conduct.
