Filipe A. Mendes

The defendants 1995636 Ontario Inc. and Lisa Bailey brought a motion seeking a stay of proceedings due to the plaintiff's alleged failure to timely disclose multiple settlement agreements with another defendant, 2495048 Ontario Inc. In the alternative, they sought severance of claims against them, arguing their involvement was discrete.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the undisclosed agreements did not "entirely alter the landscape of the litigation" or change the adversarial position of the parties into a cooperative one.

The court also dismissed the motion for severance, determining that the test for joinder was met due to common questions of fact and law and interconnectedness between the claims across multiple properties, promoting efficiency and avoiding inconsistent judgments.

The plaintiff, Debt Aid Consulting Inc., a debt relief marketing company, sued the defendant, Financial Rescue LLC, a competitor, alleging breaches of the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act, the Business Names Act, and the Competition Act, and tortious interference with economic relations.

The plaintiff sought declarations that the defendant was not entitled to conduct business or advertise in Canada, and damages for lost business and increased advertising costs.

The court found that the defendant's activities were marketing services and did not fall within the definitions of a "collection agency" or "debt settlement service" under the CDSSA.

The court also found no evidence of false or misleading representations under the Competition Act or the elements required for intentional interference with economic relations.

The action was dismissed with costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage action.

The plaintiff, 1658161 Ontario Inc., sought costs after obtaining partial summary judgment, arguing the motion was necessary due to the defendant's, Dianne Marie Carroll's, failure to pay and refusal to acknowledge possession rights.

The defendant opposed, claiming she had consented to part of the judgment.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, determined that costs should be fixed at this stage rather than reserved for trial.

The plaintiff's costs claim was reduced by one-third for the summary judgment motion, and the defendant was ordered to pay $10,000 in costs to the plaintiff.

The appellant, The Corporation of the City of Waterloo, sought an extension of time to perfect an appeal that was seven and a half months overdue.

The appellant failed to take steps to perfect the appeal until prompted by the respondents and the registrar, and subsequent attempts to file were rejected due to technical deficiencies.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that despite the preference for deciding cases on their merits, the appellant's repeated failure to comply with rules and procedures caused prejudice to the respondents and did not serve the justice of the case.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application to direct the registration of a tax deed, the successful responding parties sought partial indemnity costs.

The applicant argued that the costs awarded should be limited to the amount of its own legal costs in bringing the application, relying on the principle that the unsuccessful party's costs can indicate the parties' expectations.

The court rejected this argument, noting that the application posed a significant financial risk to the responding parties, justifying their higher costs.

The court fixed costs at $22,000 for the municipality and $11,000 for the mortgagee.

The applicant, 2494044 Ontario Inc., sought an order directing Norfolk County to register a tax deed for a commercial property after being the highest tenderer in a tax sale.

The County cancelled the tax sale after the previous mortgagee paid the outstanding taxes.

The court found that the County Treasurer acted reasonably in exercising discretion under section 382(6)(a) of the Municipal Act to cancel the tax sale, as it was not in the municipality's financial interest to continue.

The application was dismissed, affirming the Treasurer's decision.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her professional negligence action against her former lawyers.

Her action was dismissed under Rule 57.03(2) after she failed to pay a $10,400 costs award from an unsuccessful summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge properly balanced the competing interests, noting the appellant provided no evidence of her alleged impecuniosity or the merits of her claim.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following a successful civil action involving police conduct and Charter-related issues, the court addressed the plaintiff’s request for costs.

The plaintiff sought legal fees exceeding the damages award obtained at trial.

The court found the requested fees disproportionate to the modest recovery and concluded the matter, while important, was not legally complex.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the hourly rate and compensable hours, finding the file had been over-lawyered.

Costs were awarded at a reduced amount reflecting proportionality while acknowledging the significance of the issues and imbalance in bargaining power.