Gord McGuire

This costs endorsement follows a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Halime Khatoun Aghdasi, in a dispute over two properties.

The court found that the defendant, Vahid Mehdizadeh Asiyaban, engaged in reprehensible conduct, including fabricating evidence, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

The decision reviews the applicable legal principles for costs, the scale of costs, and the quantum, ultimately awarding the plaintiff $279,495 in fees plus HST and disbursements.

Great American Insurance Company appealed a judgment finding it had a duty to defend the City of Thunder Bay against claims related to property damage from sodium hydroxide in the water supply.

Great American argued a lead exclusion in its policy precluded coverage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that a section of the lead exclusion was ambiguous, thus triggering the duty to defend based on the "mere possibility" of coverage, as per *Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada*.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

Following the breakdown of their common-law relationship, the parties disputed ownership of two properties.

The plaintiff sought a 50% interest in a commercial property registered to the defendant's corporation, while the defendant sought a 50% interest in a residential property registered to the plaintiff.

The court found the plaintiff contributed 50% to the commercial property and awarded her a half interest via resulting trust.

The court dismissed the defendant's claims to the residential property, finding he made no contributions and fabricated invoices to improperly obtain a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The plaintiff was awarded $241,000 in damages for the improper CPL and $100,000 in punitive damages for the defendant's malicious litigation conduct.

At a case conference in a proposed class action regarding denied trip cancellation benefits due to COVID-19, the court determined the sequencing of a proposed Rule 21 motion by the defendant bank and the plaintiff's certification motion.

The court held that hearing the Rule 21 motion prior to certification would not substantially narrow the issues, as the substantive claims against the co-defendant insurer would remain identical.

Exercising its discretion under section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court ordered the Rule 21 motion to be heard at the same time as the certification motion.

The appellant appealed a Master's order discharging a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a property owned by his former common-law partner.

The Master discharged the CPL unconditionally after finding the appellant failed to disclose two agreements stating he had no interest in the property and relied on a fraudulent invoice to obtain the ex parte CPL.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle in the Master's exercise of discretion in equity.

The appeal of the Master's substantial indemnity costs award was also dismissed.

This endorsement from a case conference outlines a revised schedule for a class action proceeding.

The previous schedule for a certification motion was disrupted, necessitating a motion to amend the Statement of Claim.

The court approved a new timeline, setting dates for the service of motion records, cross-examinations, factum exchanges, and hearings for both the amendment motion (September 10, 2020) and the certification motion (November 26, 2020).

The appellant insurer appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice regarding insurance policy interpretation.

The insurer argued that there was no "Claim" against an "Insured Person" for a "Wrongful Act" nor was there a "Loss" within the policy's definitions.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's interpretation of the governing principles or the policy language, and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent was awarded costs of $16,000.

The respondents were wholly successful on the appeal and sought partial indemnity costs totaling over $111,000.

The appellants conceded the respondents were entitled to costs but argued the amounts sought were excessive, proposing a total of $30,000.

The Court of Appeal fixed the costs payable by the appellants at $20,000 for Vicentini, $10,000 for Ford Credit, and $10,000 for Personal Insurance, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellants sought a new trial arising from a jury verdict in a child pedestrian personal injury action, challenging evidentiary rulings on vehicle brakes, expert human factors evidence, and the fairness of the defence conducted by counsel appointed by an insurer reserving rights.

The court held the trial judge properly excluded late-disclosed participant expert opinion evidence extending beyond the contemporaneous inspection form, properly admitted unobjected-to accident reconstruction and human factors evidence, and committed no error in charging the jury.

The court also held that any alleged insurer-insured conflict had to be raised promptly before trial and that no unfairness in the defence was demonstrated.

The appeal was dismissed on liability and damages, but the costs order was varied so that trial costs payable to successful defendants were payable only by the litigation guardian personally and in that capacity, not by the minor appellants personally.

The appellants entered into an agreement with the respondent to build and operate a car dealership.

The respondent terminated the agreement after the appellants failed to meet construction deadlines.

The trial judge found the termination was unreasonable but held that an exclusion clause protected the respondent from liability for damages.

On appeal, the appellants argued the exclusion clause should not apply to an unreasonable termination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's interpretation of the broadly worded exclusion clause was reasonable and not tainted by palpable and overriding error.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant insurer to deliver an Affidavit of Documents and submit to an Examination for Discovery in an action seeking indemnity under section 258 of the Insurance Act.

The underlying tort action, in which the infant plaintiff obtained a judgment against his father, was under appeal.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding it premature because the tort judgment was stayed pending appeal and the requested discovery amounted to a fishing expedition that went beyond the current pleadings.

Following an order dismissing both the action and the counterclaim for delay, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs and disbursements.

The plaintiffs argued that portions of the claimed fees resulted in double compensation for the same court appearance and that the hours claimed were excessive.

The court accepted that costs should follow the event but reduced the amount claimed in light of the circumstances and the parties’ shared responsibility for delay.

Partial indemnity costs and reduced disbursements were awarded to the defendant.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss an action for delay arising from a dispute over the purchase of a yacht allegedly suffering engine defects.

The action had remained largely stagnant for more than a decade after pleadings were closed, with limited discovery activity and no meaningful prosecution by the plaintiffs.

The court held the delay was inordinate and inexcusable and raised a presumption of prejudice that the plaintiffs failed to rebut.

The defendant also demonstrated actual prejudice, including the loss of warranty claims against the engine manufacturer, the bankruptcy of a co-defendant manufacturer, and evidentiary issues arising from faded recollection and lack of preserved expert evidence.

The court dismissed both the claim and the defendant’s counterclaim for delay and, in the alternative, exercised its inherent jurisdiction to control its process.

In a receivership proceeding, the court considered a motion by a court-appointed receiver seeking a contempt finding against an individual who had taken possession of gold bars purchased by the debtor companies shortly before the receivership.

The receiver alleged that the respondent failed to comply with court orders requiring delivery of the precious metals and disclosure of information about their whereabouts.

Applying the three-part test for civil contempt, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent knowingly breached both orders by failing to return at least some of the gold bars under his control and by withholding contact information for individuals involved in their distribution.

The court emphasized that contempt proceedings serve both punitive and coercive purposes to uphold the rule of law and enforce compliance with court orders.

The respondent was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment in Canada unless he purged his contempt within seven days by delivering available gold bars and providing the required information.