J. Anthony Caldwell

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for summary judgment regarding a real estate transaction deposit, the parties were unable to settle the quantum of costs.

The respondent sought $31,015.72 on a partial indemnity basis, while the applicant argued for approximately $11,000.

The court found the time spent by the respondent's counsel reasonable but reduced the partial indemnity hourly rate from 80% to 60% of the actual rate.

Costs were fixed at $24,314.82 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court issued a supplementary costs endorsement regarding specific disbursements claimed by the defendants, Co-operators.

After receiving an explanatory letter from the defendants' counsel and no response from the plaintiffs, the court found the disbursements for photocopies, binding, scanning, and laser printing to be reasonable.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $11,406.37 for these disbursements.

The defendants sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action.

Vancity claimed substantial indemnity costs based on a Rule 49.10 offer to settle.

The court held that Rule 49.10 does not apply where an action is dismissed, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the defendants' claimed hours were excessive, noting the plaintiffs failed to produce their own bill of costs for comparison.

The court fixed Vancity's fees at $200,000 and Co-operators' fees at $130,000, plus HST and allowable disbursements.

Following a prior decision granting summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff, the court considered the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought costs of the summary judgment motion and the proceeding to date.

The court noted that the potential range of damages remained uncertain and could significantly affect the appropriate costs disposition.

Because damages might ultimately be minimal or reflect only disgorgement of profit, the court held that the proper allocation of costs could not yet be determined.

Costs were therefore reserved pending the final determination of damages.

A secured creditor brought an action as assignee of a court‑appointed receiver alleging fraudulent misrepresentation arising from the sale of a commercial property during receivership.

The defendant purchaser had secretly arranged to resell the property for a substantially higher price and directed title to the ultimate buyer while providing transaction documents that falsely described that buyer as the purchaser under the receiver’s agreement of purchase and sale.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

The court held that although the defendant had no initial duty to disclose the flip transaction, the closing documents contained express misrepresentations and misleading statements that constituted fraudulent misrepresentation.

The motion was dismissed and liability was determined, with causation and damages to be addressed in subsequent proceedings.

The applicants sought a representation order under Rule 10.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permitting them to represent 416 claimants who had used payroll processing services and alleged that trust funds were misapplied by a bank.

The underlying dispute concerned funds withdrawn from employers’ accounts for payroll and tax remittances that were deposited into mixed trust accounts and partially applied to reduce the payroll processor’s indebtedness to the bank or transferred to a related entity.

The bank opposed the representation order, arguing that two separate transactions created distinct issues among claimants.

The court held that common issues existed because liability for the alleged breaches of trust would affect all claimants collectively and distribution of any recovery would be shared.

A representation order was granted and a related unopposed motion concerning distribution of funds held by a government agency was also authorized.