2 total
The court awarded the plaintiffs $2,340.85 in costs payable in the cause following a partially successful motion to amend pleadings.
The plaintiffs sought costs of their successful motion to amend their statement of claim.
The Whyte Defendants and Andrew Paiva opposed the motion and sought their own costs, arguing divided success.
The court, applying Rule 57.01 and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, found that while there was divided success, the plaintiffs were entitled to some costs as they succeeded on the most significant spoliation allegations.
The court dismissed the defendants' claims for costs and fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $2,340.85, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable in the cause.
Punitive damages upheld for landlord's failure to repair; cross-appeal allowed for Rule 49.10 substantial indemnity costs.
The appellant landlord appealed a jury award of punitive damages arising from its continuing failure to maintain and repair the respondent's apartment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury properly identified an independent actionable wrong based on the landlord's highly reprehensible conduct.
The respondent's cross-appeal on costs was allowed, as the trial judge erred in failing to apply Rule 49.10 after the judgment exceeded the respondent's offer to settle.
The respondent was awarded substantial indemnity costs for the trial and costs of the appeal.
