Ian Sinke

This endorsement addresses costs following an appeal decision.

The appellant, Nathalie Xian Yi Yan, was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to two sets of respondents and substantial indemnity costs to a third respondent, Edward Lawrence Marrocco.

The substantial indemnity costs were awarded due to the appellant's frivolous, vexatious, and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct, dishonesty, illegality, and conspiracy against Mr. Marrocco.

The appellant, a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner, launched 19 civil claims against individuals involved in disciplinary proceedings against her, including investigators, College counsel, and independent legal counsel to the Discipline Committee.

These claims alleged defamation, professional negligence, evidence tampering, and breach of due process.

The motion judge struck these claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being barred by statutory immunity under the Regulated Health Professions Act, and constituting an impermissible collateral attack on the tribunal's decision.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, affirming the application of statutory immunity, absolute privilege for statements in judicial/tribunal proceedings, and the rule against collateral attacks, and denied leave to amend the claims or appeal the costs awards.

The defendant process server brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged fraud, conspiracy, negligence, and breach of contract arising from allegedly forged affidavits of service and fraudulent billing.

The court struck the breach of contract and negligence claims without leave to amend, finding no privity of contract and no tenable duty of care owed by the defendant in his capacity as a commissioner of oaths.

The fraud and conspiracy claims were struck with leave to amend, as the plaintiffs failed to plead the requisite material facts and elements with specificity.

Inflammatory paragraphs were also struck.

The defendant successfully moved to withdraw deemed admissions arising from an inadvertent failure to respond to a request to admit.

The defendant sought costs of the motion.

The plaintiff argued no costs should be awarded because the defendant was seeking an indulgence.

The court awarded costs to the defendant, finding the plaintiff acted unreasonably by engaging in 'gotcha litigation' and refusing to consent to the withdrawal when there was no prejudice.

The plaintiff served a request to admit on the defendants.

Counsel for the moving defendant inadvertently failed to respond to five requests, resulting in deemed admissions of liability and damages.

The plaintiff subsequently brought a motion for judgment based on these deemed admissions.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to withdraw the deemed admissions under Rule 51.05.

The court granted the motion, finding that the failure to respond was inadvertent, there was no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff, and there were triable issues on the merits.

The plaintiffs (purchasers) brought a motion for summary judgment for the return of their $60,000 deposit after an abortive real estate transaction, and for the dismissal of the defendant vendor's counterclaim for breach of contract.

The agreement of purchase and sale was conditional on financing and review of a status certificate.

The conditions were not waived in writing by the deadline, rendering the agreement null and void.

The vendor argued the purchasers waived the conditions by their conduct.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the conditions were not waived and the purchasers made no misrepresentations.

The deposit was ordered returned and the counterclaim dismissed.

This motion by the plaintiff sought to vary a 2018 judgment regarding costs, specifically to include a corporate defendant (1779042 Ontario Ltd.) as jointly liable for a $95,000 costs award, as the other corporate defendant had gone bankrupt.

The plaintiff initially sought rectification based on a clerical error under Rule 59.06 but later amended the motion to argue there was no agreement on costs, seeking a new determination.

The defendant 1779042 Ontario Ltd. brought a cross-motion to vary the costs endorsement.

The court adjourned the motion to allow the defendant to respond to the amended motion and new affidavit, permitting cross-examinations, and reserving costs of the adjournment.

The plaintiff, acting as Estate Trustee, brought a motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property held by the deceased's sister.

The deceased and her sister had taken title as joint tenants following a refinancing arrangement, but the sister had not paid the agreed consideration.

After the deceased's death, the sister registered a survivorship application and further encumbered the property.

The court found that the transfer was gratuitous, raising a presumption of resulting trust, and that the Estate had met the threshold of demonstrating a triable issue regarding its interest in the property.

The motion was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The moving parties sought to set aside an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal that denied them an extension of time to appeal.

The underlying appeal concerned a motion to remove opposing counsel from the record, which had been dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to set aside, confirming that the underlying order was interlocutory and therefore the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a $200,000 settlement under Rule 49.09, arguing they had accepted a 2016 offer from the defendants in 2020.

The court found that while the 2016 letter contained a valid Rule 49 offer that remained open for acceptance, the plaintiffs' purported acceptance in 2020 introduced new terms regarding mutual releases and costs involving parties not represented by the offeror's counsel.

Consequently, the purported acceptance was a counter-offer, and no agreement on essential terms was reached.

The motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal and motions, the court determined the scale and quantum of costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs' conduct, which included baseless allegations of fraud, conspiracy, and criminal conduct against the defendant's counsel, LawPro, and the LSO, was reprehensible, scandalous, and outrageous.

Consequently, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the successful parties, fixing the amounts at $12,000 for the defendant, $9,000 for LawPro, and $7,500 for the LSO.

The Hordos (plaintiffs/appellants) appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion for various relief, including removal of the defendant's counsel, discovery-related orders, and striking pleadings.

They also brought a Rule 59.06 motion to set aside the Master's order based on alleged fraud and fresh facts, and a motion for extraordinary relief such as interim costs, declaring LawPro and LSO vexatious litigants, and appointing a receiver for the LSO.

The court dismissed all of the Hordos' appeals and motions, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Master's decision, no evidence of fraud or material fresh facts to set aside the order, and no legal basis for the extraordinary relief sought.

The court affirmed the Master's finding that the Hordos' conspiracy theory was baseless.