G.P. DiTomaso

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages for building deficiencies against the builder and the municipality, the court determined the costs of the proceeding.

The plaintiff sought costs on a joint and several basis.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs but declined to make the order joint and several, instead apportioning liability for costs 65% to the municipality and 35% to the builder based on the relative amounts recovered.

The municipality was also awarded costs on its successful cross-claim against the builder.

Following a five-day family law trial primarily concerning spousal support, both parties sought costs.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $113,000, while the respondent sought $17,000.

The court found that both parties took unreasonable positions that prolonged the trial, resulting in divided success.

The respondent was awarded a lump sum of $46,000 for spousal support, far less than the $500,000 claimed, while the applicant was successful in arguing that support should be based on income rather than assets.

Given the divided success, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The plaintiff sold his property to the defendant, but the defendant failed to close the transaction.

The plaintiff subsequently resold the property for a lower price and sued for the difference in sale price and special damages.

The defendant counterclaimed for the return of her deposit, arguing that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by not accepting her proposed amendment to the agreement.

The court found that the plaintiff was not obligated to accept the proposed amendment and had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his damages by relisting and selling the property.

The plaintiff was awarded damages and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

Following a previous decision fixing costs on a partial-indemnity scale at $144,679.55 subject to a credit from Pierringer Agreements, the parties agreed that no credit amount should be applied.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the full fixed amount of $144,679.55 for costs, including taxes and disbursements.

Following the dismissal of the respondents' objections to the passing of accounts, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant estate trustee, who was successful in the main proceeding, requested that all parties bear their own costs rather than seeking a costs award.

The unsuccessful respondents claimed costs.

The court held that the respondents were not entitled to costs as the unsuccessful parties, and accepted the applicant's proposal as fair and reasonable.

All parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

The plaintiffs advanced funds secured by three mortgages on a property owned by the defendant, which went into default.

The plaintiffs also advanced approximately $400,000 in construction costs to build a cottage and boathouse to enhance the property's value for sale.

The property sold for $1,250,000.

The court determined the outstanding mortgage balances and found that while the construction loans were not secured by the third mortgage, there was an implied agreement to pay interest at 5% under the Interest Act.

The court imposed an equitable mortgage and constructive trust over the sale proceeds to secure repayment of the construction costs, finding the defendants were unjustly enriched.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment against the mortgagor and guarantors for the deficiency balance remaining after the property was sold under power of sale.

One guarantor opposed the motion, alleging the sale was improvident and that the plaintiff or his agent frustrated other potential sales.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding the plaintiff took reasonable precautions to obtain market value and there was no evidence of interference with other offers.

Summary judgment was granted for the deficiency balance of $4,090,074.26 plus interest and substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant, previously convicted of child luring, brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the undercover police officer's actions during an internet sting operation amounted to entrapment.

The applicant contended the officer lacked reasonable suspicion and engaged in random virtue testing when responding to a Craigslist ad.

The court dismissed the application, finding the officer had abundant objectively reasonable grounds to suspect the applicant was a predator based on the ad's contents and the unfolding conversation.

The court held that the police conduct did not constitute random virtue testing and was a bona fide inquiry.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment on its construction lien claim against the general contractor.

The general contractor failed to file any responding materials and relied solely on its pleadings and technical arguments.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial as the general contractor had admitted the supply of services and materials and had no evidence to dispute the quantum or timeliness of the lien.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment on its construction lien claim for $94,729.17 against the general contractor, who had posted a lien bond to vacate the lien.

The general contractor filed no responding materials, arguing instead that leave was required and that the evidentiary record was deficient under s. 17(1) of the Construction Lien Act.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that leave was granted, Rule 48.04 did not bar the motion, and the uncontradicted evidence established the timeliness and quantum of the claim.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for property damage to her vehicle.

The plaintiff had permitted her boyfriend to drive her vehicle, and he was subsequently involved in an accident while intoxicated and unlicensed.

The insurer denied coverage under s. 7.2.2 of the Ontario Automobile Policy (OAP-1) for illegal use.

The plaintiff argued the insurer had to prove she knew her boyfriend was intoxicated or unlicensed when she gave permission.

The court rejected this interpretation, holding that s. 7.2.2 only requires the insurer to prove the plaintiff permitted the other person to drive, and that the other person committed an illegal use.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed.

Following a trial regarding a right of way over a laneway, both parties sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendant was substantially successful at trial, having successfully restricted the right of way to pedestrian access only and defeated the plaintiff's claim for damages.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $70,000, discounting the requested amount to reflect the plaintiff's success on certain issues.

The offender was convicted of second degree murder for stabbing a 16-year-old victim to death and attempted murder for stabbing a 17-year-old victim.

The Crown sought a 16-year parole ineligibility period, while the defence sought 12 to 14 years.

The court considered the offender's lengthy and violent criminal record, his non-compliance with court orders, and the vicious, unprovoked nature of the attack on unsuspecting victims.

The court set the period of parole ineligibility at 15 years.