Hank Witteveen

Following the consented annulment of the debtor's bankruptcy proposal, the moving party sought solicitor and client costs of over $62,000.

The court rejected the application of Rules 38.08(1) and 23.05(1), finding that section 197 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act governed the costs motion.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01(1), the court found the debtor's conduct in filing the proposal was ill-advised but not reprehensible enough to warrant solicitor and client costs.

Finding the claimed hours excessive and unreasonable, the court fixed costs at $8,000 inclusive of HST.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking recovery on a promissory note allegedly assigned to him.

The defendants argued that no valid assignment existed, that a later written assignment could not retroactively confer standing, and that the claim was barred by the Limitations Act.

The court held that although the statutory requirements for a legal assignment were not satisfied, an equitable assignment arose through conduct including a written demand and commencement of the action.

The equitable assignment was effective before the limitation period expired.

The court exercised its discretion to add the assignor as a party plaintiff nunc pro tunc and granted judgment.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on a $70,000 promissory note assigned to him by his wholly-owned corporation.

The defendants opposed, arguing the assignment was invalid and raising a limitation period defence.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a full trial but adjourned the motion for further submissions on specific legal issues, including whether the action was statute-barred and the effect of a subsequent assignment executed after the action commenced.

The plaintiffs, tenants of a commercial property including a motel and restaurant/bar, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction requiring the landlord defendants to repair the premises, an abatement of rent, and relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached the lease by failing to provide the restaurant/bar in an operational state and failing to repair major structural systems.

The court found the plaintiffs suffered irreparable harm due to ongoing repair expenses and loss of income.

The court granted the injunction, ordered a 50% abatement of rent until repairs are completed, and granted relief from forfeiture, noting the plaintiffs' substantial investment in the property.

Following a nine‑day trial in which the plaintiffs’ action was dismissed, the defendants and the third party sought costs.

The defendants requested substantial indemnity costs based largely on allegations of fraud advanced against them and an unaccepted settlement offer made in related litigation.

The court held that the offer made in the separate main action was irrelevant to the costs of the present case and declined to award recovery of unrecovered costs from that action.

However, because the plaintiffs advanced serious allegations akin to fraud that were ultimately unfounded, the court awarded the defendants solicitor‑and‑client scale costs.

The third party was awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of her offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, reflecting that her offer was more favourable than the result obtained at trial.

The plaintiffs purchased a commercial plaza that was contaminated with PCE from a former dry cleaning business.

They sued the vendor for fraudulent misrepresentation, alleging the vendor concealed environmental reports showing the contamination.

They also sued their real estate lawyer for professional negligence, alleging she failed to obtain the reports or properly advise them regarding the environmental condition.

The court dismissed the action against all defendants.

The court found as a fact that the vendor had provided the environmental reports to the purchaser before the environmental condition was waived.

The court also found that the lawyer met the standard of care, as the purchaser had taken responsibility for satisfying the environmental condition and had instructed her to waive it after receiving the reports.

The applicant sought a declaration to dissolve a partnership with the respondent and an accounting of assets, primarily an Ottawa taxi plate.

The parties had a five-year partnership agreement that expired, but the respondent continued to use the taxi plate exclusively.

The court found it just and equitable to dissolve the partnership under the Partnership Act and directed a reference to a Master to supervise the sale of the taxi plate and conduct an accounting.