3 total
The court fixed costs at $25,000 in the cause following divided success on winding-up applications.
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.
Motion to enforce settlement granted; objective reading of agreement permitted surveyor to select previously alleged boundary.
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.
Court awards $35,000 costs after defendant’s successful summary judgment in boundary dispute.
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.
