Fernando Sabino Teixeira

The Applicant and Respondent, joint owners of a family business, brought competing applications to wind up the corporation and for an accounting.

Following an order for the business sale and an accounting, the parties sought costs.

The Applicant requested substantial indemnity costs of $50,202.35, while the Respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $17,243.58.

The court found that success was divided and that a punitive costs award was not justified.

The court fixed costs at $25,000, to be "in the cause" of the ongoing accounting or arbitration.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding a property boundary dispute.

The settlement required the parties to hire a licensed surveyor to determine a new boundary line.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing the surveyor improperly selected a boundary previously determined by the defendants' surveyor.

The court found that the settlement agreement, read objectively, did not preclude the new boundary from matching a previously alleged boundary.

The motion was granted, and the survey was ordered to be registered on title.

The parties appeared in Civil Practice Court to seek a consent adjournment of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion because the defendants failed to complete cross-examinations by the court-ordered deadline.

The court granted the adjournment but issued an endorsement emphasizing the need for a 'culture shift' in civil litigation, criticizing the parties for ignoring the scheduling order and the defendants' counsel for attending court unprepared.

The court stressed that case management schedules are mandatory and parties must proactively seek amendments rather than letting deadlines pass.

The plaintiff brought an action for malicious prosecution after neighbours initiated private criminal charges alleging assault, mischief, and uttering death threats arising from a series of neighbourhood disputes.

The criminal charges were later withdrawn by the Crown after concerns they were being used to gain advantage in ongoing civil litigation.

The court applied the four-part test from Nelles v Ontario and found the defendants initiated the proceedings, the charges terminated in the plaintiff’s favour, there was no reasonable and probable cause, and the prosecution was motivated by an improper collateral purpose.

The court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence over the defendants’ and concluded the charges were laid maliciously.

General damages and reimbursement of legal fees incurred defending the criminal charges were awarded.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiffs’ action and granting judgment on the defendant’s counterclaim in a residential boundary dispute, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendant had previously served an offer to settle dismissing the action with partial indemnity costs, which remained open and unaccepted.

The plaintiffs argued for partial indemnity costs and challenged the defendant counsel’s hourly rate, while the defendant sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found the defendant was virtually completely successful and that the time spent and hourly rate were reasonable.

Balancing the factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded costs at a level slightly above partial indemnity but below substantial indemnity.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of an eviction order on the basis that it was manifestly devoid of merit.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had ordered eviction after finding the tenants committed an illegal act involving obstructing and assaulting a peace officer, and declined to grant relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Act due to the tenants' lack of candour.

The Divisional Court found the appeal raised no questions of law and was merely an attempt to overturn findings of fact and credibility.

The motion to quash was granted and the certificate of stay was vacated.