Gary G. Boyd

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs and the release of funds held in trust from a real estate transaction.

On the return of the motion, after the court highlighted significant evidentiary deficiencies in their affidavit materials, the defendants abandoned the motion in its entirety.

The court formally dismissed the abandoned motion and awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the motion was poorly executed and lacked merit.

The defendant brought a motion to amend her Statement of Defence and Crossclaim to allege that the plaintiff credit union and its former employee participated in a fraudulent mortgage transaction.

The court dismissed the motion to amend the pleadings regarding the employee and the credit union, finding that the defendant knew of the employee's involvement years prior.

The proposed amendments constituted a new cause of action that was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Minor amendments elaborating on the existing fraud pleadings against the co-defendant were permitted.

Following a declaration that the respondents were vexatious litigants, the applicants sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the respondents' abusive conduct.

However, the court reduced the costs claimed by one applicant because their counsel was located in Toronto, finding it unreasonable to expect the unsuccessful party to pay higher Toronto rates for a matter heard in the Ottawa region.

The parties settled a shareholder dispute, agreeing that the defendant would purchase the plaintiff's shares and pay 'costs as agreed or assessed'.

They could not agree on the scale or quantum of costs.

The defendant argued the costs should be assessed by an assessment officer pursuant to Rule 57.04.

The plaintiff argued the court should determine the costs as part of enforcing the settlement.

The court held that because determining the appropriate scale of costs required interpreting the settlement agreement, a judge should make the necessary factual and legal determinations rather than delegating to an assessment officer.

The plaintiff was directed to bring a motion to enforce the settlement.

The defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim (the Burdet Group) brought a motion for a timetable order to schedule a trial for their counterclaim and for an order to recalculate past arrears.

The plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim (CCC396) brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

The court granted the cross-motion, ordering the Burdet Group to post $836,415 in security for costs due to multiple unpaid costs awards and a history of vexatious litigation.

The Burdet Group's motions were dismissed, with the timetable request deemed premature until security is posted.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a 2014 trial judgment regarding unpaid condominium fees, relying on an affidavit they claimed contained new facts.

The court found the motion to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 21.02(1).

The court noted that the burden under Rule 59.06(2) is high and the defendants failed to present any facts that arose after the trial or could not have been reasonably discovered prior.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The respondents brought a motion to consolidate an application with an action.

During cross-examinations on affidavits, the applicant refused to answer several questions, leading to this refusals motion.

The Master ordered the applicant to answer questions regarding the merits of the application and his understanding of contractual documents, finding that the parol evidence rule does not preclude such questions at the cross-examination stage.

However, the Master upheld the applicant's claim of solicitor-client privilege over documents in a mediation file, finding no blanket waiver of privilege.

Following a construction lien trial in which the plaintiff recovered the balance owing for stone installation and successfully defended a counterclaim alleging deficiencies, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, arguing that the defendants engaged in unreasonable conduct by presenting inflated invoices contradicted by their own witness and by making misleading testimony.

The court held that the conduct was unreasonable but did not rise to the level warranting full or substantial indemnity costs.

Considering the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties’ settlement offers, the complexity of the construction litigation, and proportionality, the court awarded costs slightly above partial indemnity.

Costs were fixed at $50,000 plus HST and $3,000 in disbursements.