Gary Helmut Enskat

This endorsement addresses costs following a summary judgment motion where the defendant achieved partial success on minor claims but failed on the two main claims.

Both parties sought costs.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $15,000 in partial indemnity costs, reduced to reflect the defendant's minor successes.

The court found that it was not unreasonable for the defendant to have brought the summary judgment motion.

The defendant, Robert Mills, moved for partial summary judgment and leave to amend his statement of defence to plead the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs claimed for breach of contract and tort related to the purchase of residences and a common recreational complex.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on claims for breach of privacy, breach of contract regarding monthly fees for club access, and deficiencies in construction.

However, the court dismissed the defendant's request for summary judgment on claims related to the delay in building the clubhouse and misrepresentation about golf course proximity/view, finding these issues required a trial due to intertwined facts and the need to potentially pierce the corporate veil.

Leave to amend the statement of defence to plead limitation periods for breach of contract and golf course representations was also denied.

The applicant, PRW Excavating Contractors Ltd., sought to enforce a 2007 judgment against additional respondents (individuals and related corporations) by utilizing the oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and by piercing the corporate veil.

The court found that the intermingling of corporate affairs by the individual respondents, coupled with a lack of critical disclosure, constituted oppressive conduct, making all respondents jointly and severally liable for the judgment under the oppression remedy.

The court also dismissed the respondents' argument that the claim was statute-barred, finding it was an enforcement of a judgment, not a new cause of action, and fell within the 15-year ultimate limitation period.

However, the court dismissed the claim to pierce the corporate veil, citing the high threshold for proving illegal or fraudulent conduct.

The successful moving party on a prior motion for production of documents sought approximately $22,000 in costs.

The responding party argued that each side should bear its own costs because the motion raised a novel point of law and challenged the reasonableness of the moving party’s time and cross‑examination costs.

The court rejected the argument that the motion involved a novel legal issue and found the responding party’s resistance to production unreasonable.

However, the court held that the parties should bear their own costs for cross‑examinations on affidavits.

Costs were awarded to the successful moving party on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $12,500, all inclusive.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff obtained judgment for unpaid amounts arising from a business relationship, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs to the date of settlement offers and substantial indemnity costs thereafter under Rule 49.

The court found the offers did not qualify for enhanced costs because they had been withdrawn and were not properly filed.

Considering the conduct of the parties and complications arising from an acknowledged but unpleaded debt owed by the plaintiff to the defendant, the court reduced the costs sought and awarded partial indemnity costs only.