Gregory Tad Alexander Gryguc

The solicitors brought a motion opposing confirmation of a Certificate of Assessment that reduced their legal account and awarded costs of the assessment hearing to the client.

The reviewing judge found no error in the assessment officer’s reduction of the solicitors’ fees on a quantum meruit basis.

However, the court held that the costs award to the self‑represented client was an error in principle because the result of the assessment was mixed and there was no evidence of costs incurred or opportunity costs lost.

The court emphasized that self‑represented litigants may recover costs only where supported by evidence of compensable loss or time beyond that ordinarily spent by a party to litigation.

The costs award was set aside while the reduced solicitor’s account was maintained.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s action after trial, the defendant sought costs relying on a pre‑trial offer to settle served under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The offer proposed payment between $25,000 and $10,000 depending on the timing of acceptance, but it was not accepted.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the offer was merely a nuisance offer and found it constituted a genuine attempt to compromise the dispute.

Applying the principles governing Rule 49 offers where the result at trial is more favourable to the offeror, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The appellant solicitors appealed a motion judge's decision upholding an assessment officer's reduction of their legal fees.

The assessment officer reduced the fees because the solicitors failed to adequately advise the client of the costs consequences of the tactics she insisted upon.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the assessment officer's conclusion was not unreasonable given the specific circumstances of the client, which required extra efforts to clarify the harsh realities of costs consequences.

The appellant company appealed a summary judgment in favour of the respondent bank for an undisputed debt amount.

The appellant argued that the respondent had orally agreed to change the loan agreement so it was no longer payable on demand.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's conclusion that this argument lacked an air of reality and was not supported by the written agreement.

The appeal was dismissed.

Tarion Warranty Corporation appealed a Tribunal decision regarding the registration of a builder, Riva's Emporium Ltd. The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion that Tarion unreasonably extended its requirements for financial information was unreasonable.

The Court also held that the Tribunal failed to recognize the seriousness of the builder's past breaches, resulting in the imposition of unreasonable, redundant, and ultra vires conditions for registration.

The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a full hearing.

The appellant law firm appealed an order dismissing its motion for a declaration that certain bank accounts in the respondent's name were held in trust for the appellant, and for a garnishment order.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge erred in applying the doctrine of res judicata, as the trust claim was not part of the earlier proceedings regarding personal liability.

However, the appeal was dismissed because garnishment under Rule 60.08 was not the proper procedure to resolve a disputed trust relationship.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the appellant commencing a separate action.

Leave to appeal costs was granted, and the costs order was varied to a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice and brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding the affidavit did not make out the case.

On the appeal, the Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside a paragraph of the lower court's order that awarded unliquidated damages for repair costs.

The Court found that under Rule 19.05(2), the affidavit evidence supporting the repair costs was unsatisfactory as it lacked details and the deponent's qualifications.

The appeal was allowed in part without prejudice to the respondent's right to pursue the claim on proper evidence.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent on agreement.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding a commercial tenancy dispute.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the relationship was not a strict tenancy at will and that an accounting was appropriate due to premature termination.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred by affording the respondents double recovery—awarding full compensation for renovations while also granting a rent-free period.

The judgment was varied to require the respondents to pay reasonable rent and utilities for the initial period, reducing the amount payable by the appellants by $8,822.57.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant law firm appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering it to pay $6,000 to the respondent, a former client.

The dispute centered on whether $6,000 from the respondent's settlement funds was properly retained by the appellant to pay her husband's outstanding legal accounts, or whether a subsequent $25,000 payment by the husband was an all-inclusive settlement of his debts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's reliance on the credible testimony of the husband's new counsel regarding the all-inclusive nature of the $25,000 settlement.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for a declaration that a transfer of title and mortgage registered against the family home were of no force and effect.

The property had been transferred to the mother pursuant to a previous judgment, which also gave the appellant a 35% beneficial interest in the proceeds if the property was sold.

The mother transferred the property to two other siblings and registered a mortgage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the previous judgment made the mother a trustee of the property at the point of sale, and she had not proven that a valid sale at fair market value occurred.

The matter was referred back for trial.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment to enforce a $50,000 penalty clause under minutes of settlement.

The respondent had defaulted on the final payment due to a dishonoured cheque caused by an administrative change, and a replacement cheque had a minor shortfall, both of which were corrected promptly.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's decision to exercise her discretion under Rule 49.09 to decline enforcement of the penalty clause, finding no palpable or overriding error.

The defendant appealed a jury trial judgment regarding liability for a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant argued the trial judge erred in his jury charge and sought to rely on allegations of negligence against third parties to reduce his liability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the defendant could not rely on third party negligence after having previously settled and dismissed the third party claim on consent without claiming contribution or indemnity against the plaintiff.