Fahad Warraich

The plaintiff and defendant each brought motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery in a construction contract dispute.

The court ordered the defendant to provide particulars of its damages claim, finding its previous answers insufficient.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding the plaintiff had either answered the undertakings or made best efforts to locate the requested documents.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

This is a costs decision following an assessment appeal.

The Law Firm sought $7,500 in costs for the assessment hearing below, while the self-represented Client made no submissions.

The court found that the Client had made a pre-assessment offer of $15,000, which was higher than the $12,993 ultimately awarded on the motion.

Applying Rule 49.10, the court declined to award costs to the Law Firm.

The court also noted that the Law Firm's bill of costs lacked the detail required for a self-represented law firm seeking costs as a party.

No costs were awarded for either the assessment or the motion.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion to oppose the confirmation of an assessment officer's report fixing her former lawyers' account at $27,431.62 plus $35,000 in costs.

The applicant had entered into a 33% contingency fee agreement for a statutory accident benefits claim, which stipulated hourly billing if terminated.

The applicant terminated the retainer and hired new counsel who settled the claim for $90,000 and took a 30% contingency fee.

The Superior Court of Justice found the assessment officer erred in principle by failing to consider the client's reasonable expectation of the fee and the overall amount paid by the client.

The court reduced the assessed fee and disbursements to $12,993 and set aside the $35,000 cost award, finding it was not proportionate or reasonable.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment on a mortgage shortfall claim against the defendant following the defendant's default on mortgage payments beginning in November 2023.

The defendant owned a four-unit apartment building that was subject to a first mortgage of approximately $1.5 million and a second mortgage of $180,000 held by the plaintiff.

After the defendant failed to make payments, the plaintiff made payments to the first mortgagee, obtained possession, and sold the property under power of sale for $1.935 million.

The sale proceeds, after deducting the first mortgage, expenses, and other costs, resulted in a shortfall of $118,325.92.

The defendant opposed the summary judgment motion, challenging the quantum and raising unsubstantiated allegations of intentional value depression.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.