Healey J.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the action against four defendants, the defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs had commenced the action seeking damages for a severe brain injury sustained in an assault.

The court declined to award costs to the successful defendants, finding this to be a rare case where the plaintiffs' impecuniosity and exceptionally sympathetic circumstances justified a departure from the normal costs rules.

The applicant was completely successful on a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home and boat.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $38,597, arguing the respondent's allegations of financial impropriety were unreasonable and unnecessarily complicated the proceedings.

The court agreed, finding the respondent's conduct egregious and noting the applicant had made multiple reasonable settlement offers.

The court awarded the applicant $38,500 in costs, to be paid from the respondent's share of the net sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.

The moving party sought partial summary judgment for $345,816 allegedly owed under an agreement concerning the sale of six townhouses.

The responding parties disputed the validity of the agreement, including whether the relevant version was signed and whether the parties had reached a meeting of the minds.

The court held that credibility issues and ambiguity in the competing agreements created genuine issues requiring a trial, making summary judgment inappropriate under the principles in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

However, based on the responding parties’ own evidence acknowledging net sale proceeds of $345,816 and a signed letter of direction to counsel, the court ordered that amount paid into court pending trial.

Directions were also made for discovery and case management steps.

The court determined costs following a motion by the defendant to strike portions of the statement of claim.

Although the defendant succeeded in striking certain allegations as irrelevant or related only to a barred wrongful dismissal claim, the relief granted was significantly narrower than what was sought.

The court found the motion was necessitated by the plaintiff advancing irrelevant matters that would have unnecessarily expanded discovery and prolonged the litigation.

However, because the defendant attempted to strike substantially more material than was warranted, full costs were not justified.

Partial costs were awarded to the defendant.