Fraser Mackinnon Blair

The plaintiff municipality was the victim of a cyber-fraud scheme where an unknown individual impersonated a contractor and diverted a payment of $201,285.86 to a fraudulent bank account.

After obtaining a Norwich order to identify the account holders, the plaintiff sued the defendants and noted them in default.

The court granted default judgment for the diverted funds, ordered the release of frozen funds held by the bank, and awarded $100,000 in punitive damages to deter such highly reprehensible misconduct.

Full indemnity costs were also awarded.

The applicants, a group of real estate development entities (Ashcroft Homes Group), sought to extend an initial Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) stay of proceedings to facilitate a restructuring.

Secured creditors, representing 84% of the total secured debt, opposed the extension and instead moved for the appointment of interim receivers.

The court found the applicants' restructuring plan lacked substance, noted a significant loss of confidence in management due to past conduct and outdated property valuations, and determined that the collaborative receivership approach proposed by the majority of secured creditors was more appropriate.

The motion to extend the CCAA stay was dismissed, and the motions for the appointment of receivers were granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to add allegations regarding a delay claim and punitive damages arising from a construction subcontract dispute.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendments pleaded a new cause of action that was statute-barred and improperly pleaded evidence.

The court granted leave to amend, finding the amendments largely provided particulars of allegations already pleaded and did not assert a fundamentally different claim.

The court also held that even if it were a new cause of action, there was a genuine factual dispute regarding discoverability that should not be resolved on a pleadings motion.

This motion was brought by Mappro Realty Inc. seeking to correct a misnomer in the defendant's name from Mizrahi Developments Inc. to Mizrahi Development Group (The One) Inc. While the substantive correction was agreed upon, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court found that Mizrahi Developments Inc. (MDI) should pay Mappro's costs because MDI knew of the misnomer early on but engaged in conduct, including attempting to preserve a groundless limitation defence, that unnecessarily prolonged the motion and caused Mappro to incur needless costs.

The court awarded Mappro substantial indemnity costs, emphasizing that a misnomer order is an application of law, not an indulgence, and that MDI's conduct warranted sanction.

The plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity basis following a successful summary judgment motion regarding commercial lease agreements and a personal guarantee.

The plaintiff relied on a contractual right to full indemnity costs.

The court acknowledged the contractual right but emphasized the principle of proportionality, noting the high costs claimed relative to the principal amount recovered and the involvement of ten fee earners.

The court fixed costs at $55,000, balancing the contractual agreement with the need for proportionate and reasonable costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce commercial lease agreements and personal guarantees after the corporate borrowers defaulted.

The individual defendant argued the plaintiff had an obligation to seize or sell the collateral before pursuing payment.

The court rejected this defence, noting the guarantees expressly allowed the lender to pursue the guarantor without exhausting recourse against the lessee or security.

Summary judgment was granted for the principal amount and accrued contractual interest, with post-judgment interest set at the statutory rate.

The Ottawa Convention Centre Corporation (OCCC) sued treefort Hip Productions Inc. (treefort) for an unpaid balance from the 2015 Ottawa Wine and Food Festival, and treefort counterclaimed, alleging OCCC breached long-term contractual obligations regarding hosting, scheduling, and booking protection.

The court found that the contractual relationship was limited to annual license agreements, which contained entire agreement clauses.

OCCC's repeated warnings that dates were not guaranteed, and the asset purchase agreement's terms, negated treefort's claims of implied long-term covenants.

The court dismissed treefort's counterclaim and granted OCCC judgment for the outstanding balance plus interest.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against a corporate guarantor following the default of a corporate borrower.

The borrower's franchise agreement was terminated, constituting a breach of the lending agreement.

The guarantor argued the bank made representations not to call on the guarantee, but failed to respond to the motion or provide evidence.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment for the principal, interest, bank fees, and full indemnity costs.

This decision addresses a dispute over costs following a successful motion.

The Applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the Respondent requested that costs be reserved to the trial judge.

Applying Rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from *Intercontinental Forest Products SA v. Rugo* and *Rogers Cable TV Ltd. v. 373041Ontario Ltd.*, the court found that a trial was a virtual certainty and that the Applicant would not be substantially prejudiced by a delay.

Consequently, the court reserved the award of costs, including the basis of indemnity, to the trial judge.

The moving party, operator of an annual wine and food festival, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the responding party convention centre from licensing its venue to other parties during the first two weekends of November in 2016 and 2017.

The parties had failed to conclude a licensing agreement for 2016 due to a dispute over unpaid invoices from the 2015 event.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any increased costs or reduced revenues from holding the festival at an alternative venue would be compensable in damages.

The balance of convenience also favoured the responding party, who had already booked other events for the disputed dates.