Frederick Scott Turton

The plaintiff sought costs of $14,352.16 on a partial indemnity scale following a motion to compel document production, which was largely resolved on consent or abandoned.

The defendants argued for costs of $5,278.23.

The Master found the plaintiff's claimed amount disproportionate given the limited success and abandoned relief, fixing costs payable to the plaintiff at $2,800.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking $1,580,000 owed under a Promissory Note and secured by a mortgage.

The defendants argued that the debt was subject to various set-offs, including unpaid rent, and that the Promissory Note was part of a broader context of dealings.

The court found that the Promissory Note was not a bill of exchange but a valid loan agreement containing an entire agreement clause, which precluded the defendants' claims for legal and equitable set-off.

Summary judgment was granted for the principal amount, but the defendants were granted leave to proceed with their counterclaim regarding a specific contractual set-off for rents against accrued interest.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a Promissory Note for $293,210 against the defendants.

The defendants argued that the note was invalid and raised a counterclaim for set-off based on various alleged debts.

The court found that the defendants' evidence lacked credibility, the counterclaim was statute-barred and without merit, and the Promissory Note was valid and enforceable.

Alternatively, the court found the defendants liable on the basis of unjust enrichment.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the counterclaim was dismissed.

Following the settlement of a construction lien action for $17,000, the parties disputed the quantum of costs payable to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought over $22,000, while the defendant argued costs should be limited to Small Claims Court tariffs because the plaintiff failed to take the least expensive course of action.

The court awarded the plaintiff $8,000 in costs, finding that while the plaintiff should have transferred the matter to Small Claims Court earlier, the defendant also delayed in bringing its motion to declare the lien expired.

The plaintiff, Heffner Investments Limited (HIL), brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of a $2.5 million debt secured by a promissory note and a second mortgage.

The defendant, Medcap Real Estate Holdings Inc. (Medcap), argued that the alleged $2.5 million debt was a sham, part of a single $2.1 million loan that had already been repaid, and that the plaintiff had breached an agreement to assist with refinancing.

The court found significant factual disputes and credibility issues between the parties regarding the nature and origin of the debt, the terms of their agreement, and the plaintiff's alleged breach.

Concluding that these issues could not be fairly resolved without a full trial, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

The moving party, Hazelton Homes Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Faieta J. dated May 28, 2020 and June 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The plaintiff commenced an action claiming beneficial ownership of two properties and seeking restitution for mortgage arrears it paid to stay writs of possession.

The defendant mortgagees moved for summary judgment to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim and to strike the claim regarding Interest Act violations.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue for trial on unjust enrichment because the plaintiff suffered no deprivation and a prior court order provided a juristic reason for the payments.

The court also struck the Interest Act claim as an abuse of process because it was already being litigated in another proceeding.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $1,500 to the respondent.

The defendant brought a motion to declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired.

The plaintiff conceded the lien had expired, leaving only the issue of costs to be determined.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs for an earlier motion to vacate the lien and partial indemnity costs for the current motion.

The court awarded the defendant a total of $5,500 in partial indemnity costs, reducing the amounts claimed due to the straightforward nature of the motions and unnecessary factum preparation.

The appellant sought to recover costs awarded against a single-purpose corporation from its parent company, the respondent.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no basis to pierce the corporate veil or award costs against a non-party, but awarded the respondent $48,408.03 in costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the action, finding no abuse of process by the respondent.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the costs award, reducing it to $25,000 due to the trial judge's failure to adequately apply the principle of proportionality in a Simplified Procedure action.

Hazelton Homes Corporation (Plaintiff) claimed beneficial ownership of two properties registered to Morteza Katebian, who had defaulted on mortgages held by Home Trust Company and Ivan Terziev and Elena Mechtcheriakova (Second Mortgagees).

Following the conversion of applications into an action, the defendants (Katebian, Payam, Home Trust, and Second Mortgagees) moved for security for costs against Hazelton.

The court found good reason to believe Hazelton's claim against Home Trust and the Second Mortgagees was frivolous and vexatious, and that Hazelton, a shell corporation, had insufficient assets.

The motion for security for costs was granted for Home Trust and the Second Mortgagees, with specific amounts ordered to be paid into court or credited from existing holdbacks.

Katebian and Payam's motion for security for costs was adjourned pending their delivery of a Statement of Defence.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay, pursuant to Rule 24 or Rule 48 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, concerning roof repairs, was commenced in 2013 and had a history of delays, including cancelled discoveries and being struck from the trial list.

The court determined Rule 48 applied, placing the onus on the plaintiff to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and demonstrate no non-compensable prejudice.

Despite the plaintiff's "barely acceptable" explanation for dilatory conduct, the court found the action was ready for trial and the defendants failed to prove actual non-compensable prejudice.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the action was restored to the trial list with peremptory trial dates.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking answers to questions refused on discovery in a wrongful competition claim.

The court addressed eight remaining disputed questions after the defendants agreed to answer five.

The motion concerned the production of electronic documents, inspection of a personal computer, legal advice, other business operations, alteration of ballistics reports, and production of corporate financial records.

The court dismissed requests for electronic document production and computer inspection due to lack of evidence of missing documents, and questions about unrelated legal advice and other businesses as speculative.

However, the court ordered answers regarding the alteration of ballistics reports and the production of corporate financial records, finding them relevant and proportional to the claims for accounting and damages.

The applicant, Hazelton Homes Corporation, initiated two applications seeking declarations of trust over two properties held by Morteza Katebian, among other relief.

Katebian and other respondents opposed, with Katebian also seeking consolidation and conversion of the applications into an action.

The court consolidated the applications but found significant material facts in dispute, including allegations of criminal activity and conflicting handwriting expert evidence regarding trust agreements.

Consequently, the court ordered the consolidated applications to proceed to trial, converting them into an action, and scheduled a case management conference.

The appellant, a commercial property owner, appealed the dismissal of its action under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant sought declaratory relief that the respondents were "persons having control of a pollutant" under section 99 of the Environmental Protection Act and were liable for contribution or indemnity regarding lead contamination on the property.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the statement of claim contained a "radical defect" by failing to allege facts necessary to support the claim, specifically failing to plead when the first discharge of lead occurred or that the respondents had control of the pollutant immediately before such discharge.

The plaintiff, N.K.P. Painting Inc., contracted with the defendants, Lamb Dundas Corp. and 319 Carlaw Inc., for painting and wall coverings.

Disputes arose over invoices for "extras." The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment regarding 37 specific invoices, arguing that agreements had been reached on their payment.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing that no final agreements were made and that the motion was inappropriate given the need to assess credibility in the context of the entire litigation.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, finding that a genuine issue of credibility existed regarding the alleged agreements, which could only be fully assessed at trial.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

A law firm moved for security for costs on appeal under Rule 61.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants, former clients, had failed to pay legal accounts totalling $184,891.39 plus interest and costs.

The motion judge found that the appellants had insufficient assets in Ontario to cover appeal costs, having taken steps to render themselves judgment proof.

The motion judge also found the appeal lacked merit, as it challenged only findings of fact and credibility without raising any arguable error in law.

The motion was granted and security for costs in the amount of $80,000 was ordered.

The appellant, a real estate company, appealed an order enforcing the respondent's rights under fitness equipment leases and general security agreements.

The respondent had leased fitness equipment to numbered companies operating fitness facilities in premises owned by the appellant.

When the lessees defaulted, the respondent sought to repossess the equipment, but the appellant prevented access and removed equipment to undisclosed locations.

The application judge granted broad declaratory relief and repossession rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld the order, finding no procedural unfairness, that the relief was consistent with the lease terms and PPSA provisions, and that the inventory schedules were necessary to account for equipment the appellant had moved among its properties.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge the plaintiff's construction lien claim and certificate of action, arguing it was not registered in a timely manner and had expired.

The plaintiff, an architectural firm, contended its last supply of services was an attendance at the property to assess a potential roof-raising project, which would make the lien timely.

The court found that this attendance did not constitute a "supply of services to an improvement" under the Construction Lien Act, as it was unsolicited, did not enhance the property's value, and was outside the scope of the original contracts.

Consequently, the lien was found to have expired in early 2009, making its registration in March 2012 untimely.

The defendants' motion to discharge the lien was granted, and the security posted by a third party was ordered to be returned.

The plaintiff's underlying contractual claim was not dismissed.

The plaintiff law firm sued to recover outstanding legal fees and disbursements for services rendered on four different litigation matters between April and November 2016.

The defendants disputed the fairness and reasonableness of the fees, alleging substandard work and excessive hours.

The court, acting as if it were an assessment under the Solicitors Act, found the fees to be fair and reasonable, considering the complexity, urgency, importance to the client, skill demonstrated, and results achieved.

The court rejected the defendants' claims of poor advice and lack of value, noting the client's sophistication and awareness of accumulating costs.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the outstanding balance plus interest.