Ioulia (Julia) Melekhovets

The court determined the costs payable following a trial where the plaintiff vendor successfully sued the defendant purchaser for failing to close a real estate transaction, and successfully defended against the purchaser's claims of conspiracy, fraud, and professional negligence.

The court awarded the vendor and her real estate agent partial and hybrid substantial indemnity costs totaling $265,000, considering the unproven allegations of fraud, the complexity of the proceedings, and the impact of Rule 49 offers to settle.

The plaintiff, Klara Kazakevich, brought an action against the defendant, Konstantin Sychev, for damages arising from an aborted residential real estate transaction.

Sychev had agreed to purchase Kazakevich's property but failed to close, alleging that the waiver of a condition was backdated and that his real estate agent, Angelika Bekman, was negligent and made misrepresentations.

The court found that the agreement of purchase and sale was validly formed, all conditions were duly waived, and there was no fraud or misrepresentation.

Sychev's refusal to close constituted an anticipatory breach.

The court awarded Kazakevich damages for the difference in the resale price and carrying costs, and dismissed Sychev's claims against Kazakevich and Bekman.

The defendants were successful in defending a defamation action brought by the plaintiffs regarding a scientific controversy.

The defendants sought costs of over $2.2 million, while the plaintiffs proposed approximately $236,000.

The court noted the defendants presented a comprehensive and formidable defence, whereas the plaintiffs' case was not robust and relied on a failed strategy.

Applying the principles for fixing costs, the court balanced the need to indemnify the successful, blameless defendants against the risk of deterring future litigants.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $1,478,766.64, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiffs, a genetic testing company and its director, sued the defendants for defamation over a magazine article criticizing their non-invasive prenatal paternity test.

The article alleged the test was dangerous, unreliable, and prone to error.

The court found the article was defamatory but dismissed the action, holding that the defendants successfully established the defences of justification, qualified privilege, fair comment, and responsible communication.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to properly validate their test according to accepted scientific methodology, rendering the test unreliable and the article's claims substantially true.

In a defamation action concerning an article criticizing the plaintiffs' prenatal paternity test, the defendants brought a motion to amend their Statement of Defence after the close of evidence at trial.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the amendment introduced new allegations regarding the validity of the underlying science, which would cause non-compensable prejudice.

The court reviewed the existing pleadings and expert reports, concluding that the validity of the science was already a live issue and the amendment merely clarified existing allegations.

The court granted the motion to amend, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs.