Gordon Dewar Capern

This is a costs decision following the applicant's successful recovery of a loan in the principal amount of approximately $14 million plus accrued interest.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $125,890 based on a provision in the loan agreement, while the respondents argued for partial indemnity costs of $50,000.

The court found that the loan agreement provision was sufficiently clear to encompass enforcement costs and awarded substantial indemnity costs of $108,000 inclusive of fees, HST and disbursements.

The court granted judgment in favour of V2 Investment Holdings Inc. for a $12.9 million loan made to Sam Mizrahi and related corporate respondents, finding the debt liquidated and undisputed.

The respondents' arguments of bad faith and equitable set-off, based on alleged promises regarding mortgage registration and intercreditor agreements, were rejected as unsupported by the evidence.

The court found no binding agreement to amend the loan or enter a standstill, and no breach of the duty of honest performance.

Judgment was granted for the outstanding amount plus interest, with directions for further submissions on costs and interest calculations.

The respondent, Webuild S.P.A., brought a motion to stay an application by Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana De Salud S.A. (SCMS) to enforce a Chilean arbitral award in Ontario.

The award was originally against Astaldi S.p.A., and SCMS sought to enforce it against Webuild, arguing Webuild assumed Astaldi's liabilities through an Italian restructuring proceeding.

Webuild contended that the threshold issue of liability assumption under Italian law should be determined in Italy.

The court granted Webuild's motion for a temporary stay, finding Italy to be the forum non conveniens for this complex issue, citing the need to avoid conflicting judgments and costly duplication of resources across multiple jurisdictions.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their summary judgment motion and granting summary judgment and a permanent stay to the respondents.

The core issue was the appellants' failure to immediately disclose settlement agreements with other defendants, which altered the litigation's adversarial landscape.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that these contingent settlement agreements, which included provisions for private evidence gathering and financial incentives for cooperation, changed the adversarial relationship into a cooperative one, triggering the immediate disclosure rule from Handley Estate.

The court reiterated that immediate disclosure is mandatory, regardless of contingencies or confidentiality clauses, and that a stay of proceedings is the appropriate remedy for such an abuse of process.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought to set aside an order enforcing a settlement agreement.

The appellant was a fully informed participant in the settlement, acting on legal advice, and knowingly entered into the settlement structured in the manner challenged on appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no illegality or impropriety in the enforcement of the settlement and upheld the motion judge's decision to enforce it.

The court also upheld the costs award made by the motion judge.