Grant R. Dow

The plaintiff brought an action for breach of contract, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment against the defendants for failing to deliver seven luxury watches purchased for $141,500 USD and failing to remit proceeds from three consigned handbags valued at $61,000 USD.

The defendants, who were self-represented, failed to respond to a Request to Admit and sought an adjournment at trial which was denied as the matter was peremptory.

The court granted judgment against both defendants jointly and severally for the Canadian equivalent of $194,500 USD, with prejudgment and postjudgment interest, but dismissed the claim for punitive damages.

Costs were deferred to the judicial official who determines the outstanding counterclaim.

This is a costs decision following a summary trial in which the plaintiff's action for 50 percent of the defendant's $301,000 casino jackpot winnings was dismissed.

The action was based on alleged breach of an oral contract, breach of trust, and unjust enrichment.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $79,750.65, while the plaintiff argued for a reduced award of $25,000.

The court awarded the defendant $40,773.84 in costs, considering factors including the nature of the dispute, the use of two counsel, conduct issues involving a witness, and the principle that costs awards should be fair and reasonable rather than blindly reflecting actual costs incurred.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment on a mortgage shortfall claim against the defendant following the defendant's default on mortgage payments beginning in November 2023.

The defendant owned a four-unit apartment building that was subject to a first mortgage of approximately $1.5 million and a second mortgage of $180,000 held by the plaintiff.

After the defendant failed to make payments, the plaintiff made payments to the first mortgagee, obtained possession, and sold the property under power of sale for $1.935 million.

The sale proceeds, after deducting the first mortgage, expenses, and other costs, resulted in a shortfall of $118,325.92.

The defendant opposed the summary judgment motion, challenging the quantum and raising unsubstantiated allegations of intentional value depression.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment between Kishan Patel (and his company TechSpirer Inc.) and ITCAD Tech Inc. regarding unpaid invoices and the enforceability of a non-competition clause in a consulting agreement.

The court found that TechSpirer Inc. was an independent contractor, not an employee, and that the non-competition clause was valid and enforceable.

Damages were awarded to both parties, with the plaintiffs receiving unpaid invoices and punitive damages, and the defendant receiving partial damages for breach of the non-compete.

The court also addressed issues of frustration, repudiation, and costs.

The plaintiff, Haytham Elzayat, brought a civil action against the Toronto Police Services Board for alleged misconduct arising from his arrests and charges for assault on October 17, 2016, and April 15, 2017.

The court found that the police officers involved acted reasonably and met the required standard of care in their investigations and arrests.

The court dismissed all claims, including those for negligent investigation, breach of Charter rights, and discrimination, and found no evidence to support the plaintiff’s allegations.

The court also addressed the limitation period and assessed damages that would have been awarded had the claim succeeded, ultimately awarding costs to the defendant.

The plaintiffs, Avante Automobile (2017) Corporation and Francesco Serpa, sought damages from BMW Canada Inc. for breach of statutory, contractual, and common law duties in relation to the purchase and operation of a BMW dealership.

The court found BMW Canada liable for failing to properly document an extension to complete required renovations and for not following the termination provisions of the Retailer Agreement.

However, the court preferred the defendant’s evidence on valuation and found no net recoverable damages.

The action was dismissed, subject to costs.

The court considered costs following a mixed-success application under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Although the applicants were awarded monetary relief, they failed on significant claims, including a request for 45% ownership and profits of the respondent corporation.

The court found success was divided and ordered each party to bear their own costs, referencing relevant offers to settle and prior case law on divided success.

The City of Toronto sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against it, relying on section 42(4)(b) of the City of Toronto Act, which bars actions for damages caused by the condition of an "untravelled portion of a highway." The court found that the area where the plaintiff was injured was not intended for ordinary or normal use, nor commonly or additionally used by the public, and therefore fell within the statutory bar.

The action against the City of Toronto was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the City.

The plaintiff, Toronto-Dominion Bank, sought summary judgment against Michael D’Cruz and Rosalind D’Cruz to set aside a $94,000 payment made by Michael to Rosalind in February 2022, shortly before Michael’s bankruptcy.

The court found that the payment constituted a preference under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and was void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, as it gave Rosalind preferential treatment over other creditors.

The court granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $94,000 and provided directions for costs.

The applicants sought relief under the Ontario Business Corporations Act for payment of 45 percent of the value of PowerNorth Utility Contractors Inc., arising from previous business dealings.

The court found that the applicants were proper complainants under the Act and entitled to remedies, including repayment of investments and services provided.

The court calculated the amounts owed for cash investment, use of premises, equipment, and services, and awarded interest.

The total award was $399,441.90.

The court declined to order a share of profits and urged the parties to agree on costs, noting divided success.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion for default judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently complied with a prior order regarding personal service of the motion record and statement of claim, nor had they provided adequate evidence of efforts to locate and serve the defendants (e.g., title search, license plate searches, skip tracer).

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, with revised dates for renewal upon compliance with the service requirements.

The defendant, Lloyd's Underwriters, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action by the plaintiff, 2689686 Ontario Inc., concerning a roof collapse at a property insured under a Builder's Risk policy.

The court found that the loss was caused by frost and heaving, a peril explicitly excluded by the policy.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the defendant's expert opinion or establish an exception to the exclusion.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action against Lloyd's Underwriters.

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, brought a 16-page Notice of Application.

The City of Toronto, as the first named respondent, sought dismissal of the application under Rule 2.1.03.

The court found that the applicant failed to follow the required procedure for vexatious litigants to seek leave to proceed, as established by a prior order.

Citing previous decisions involving the same applicant, the court dismissed the application in its entirety and ordered the applicant to pay costs on a substantial indemnity basis to each respondent.

This case concerns the approval of a minor's statutory accident benefits settlement and the determination of legal fees.

The court approved an all-inclusive settlement of $678,400, with a significant portion structured into an annuity for the minor.

However, the court reduced the proposed 25% contingent fee sought by counsel, fixing it at $115,000 plus HST and disbursements, finding the contingent fee unreasonable at the time of the hearing despite the retainer agreement being reasonable when entered.

The decision emphasized the court's duty to ensure the settlement terms are in the best interests of the person under disability.

The plaintiff, Jodi L. Feldman Professional Corporation, sought costs following a successful trial against the defendant, Lynne Catherine Foulidis, for legal services rendered.

The trial assessed the value of services at $480,919.93.

The plaintiff sought $276,631.63 in costs, applying partial indemnity to an Offer to Settle date and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The defendant objected on grounds of reasonableness, proportionality, insufficient docket details, and an alleged agreement for summary trial costs limits.

The court largely agreed with the plaintiff's entitlement to costs but made reductions for excessive claims related to statement of claim drafting, a charging order motion, and mediation, ultimately fixing costs at $240,118.50 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff sought a contempt order against the defendant May Anis and her company BNP Advisors Inc. for giving false evidence and breaching court orders.

The court found May Anis in contempt on two of four issues: failing to disclose her ownership interest in a Nova Scotia property and providing falsified tax returns.

The court deferred the decision on the appropriate penalty, including striking the statement of defence and imprisonment, to a subsequent hearing.

The plaintiff, Jodi L. Feldman Professional Corporation, a matrimonial lawyer, sued her former client, Lynne Catherine Foulidis, for unpaid legal fees totaling $664,323.38 incurred during a divorce proceeding.

The dispute centered on the existence of a written retainer, the quantum of fees, and alleged breaches of professional conduct by the plaintiff, including communication deficiencies and potential conflicts of interest.

The court found a valid written retainer existed and that the plaintiff's efforts were largely necessary due to the ex-spouse's non-disclosure.

While rejecting claims of excessive litigation or actual conflict of interest, the court found the plaintiff failed to meet the standard of care in communication and record-keeping regarding litigation strategy and risks.

The court fixed the amount owed for fees at $425,000 plus HST and disbursements, a reduction from the amount claimed, but significantly more than the defendant's proposed amount.

This decision addresses the costs of a defendant's motion to dismiss an action, which resulted in the Statement of Claim being struck with leave to amend.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs, arguing that the plaintiff's initial Statement of Claim was deficient and failed to raise a tenable cause of action.

The court found the defendant's requested costs reasonable, noting the plaintiff's failure to respond to costs submissions and the deficiency of the original pleading.

The court also clarified that Rule 49 offers to settle did not apply as the action was not dismissed, and pro bono services were not a factor in costs assessment.

This decision addresses the issue of costs and pre-judgment interest following a 29-day trial concerning a dispute over the construction of a luxury custom home.

The court's prior reasons (2023 ONSC 2015) found the owners (the Kriesers) breached contracts with the builder/landscaper (the GES defendants), dismissing the Kriesers' claims and awarding outstanding amounts to the GES defendants on their counterclaim.

The GES defendants sought substantial indemnity costs and pre-judgment interest.

The court fixed pre-judgment interest, reducing it for periods of delay attributable to the GES defendants and the COVID-19 pandemic.

For costs, the court awarded the GES defendants partial indemnity costs up to their Rule 49 Offer to Settle date (November 22, 2016) and then blended costs thereafter, reflecting their complete success in the action and counterclaim.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs throughout, finding the Kriesers' allegations did not warrant it, and made minor adjustments for costs related to mid-trial adjournments and new counsel familiarization.

The applicant sought a declaration that Rule 15.01(1) of the Law Society of Ontario's Rules of Practice and Procedure, concerning the awarding of costs against the Law Society, was ultra vires or null and void.

The Law Society brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or being an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for a declaration, finding that the Law Society's rule on costs was within its statutory authority and that costs are procedural in nature.

The Law Society's motion to dismiss was granted, and costs were awarded to the Law Society.