Jason R. Allingham

The appellant sought to consolidate several pending applications for leave to appeal in the Divisional Court with an appeal properly before the Court of Appeal.

The motion for directions was dismissed as the appellant had not obtained leave from the Divisional Court.

On the main appeal, the appellant challenged the application judge's finding of a purchase money resulting trust that awarded the respondent a 50 percent beneficial interest in a townhouse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidentiary support for the application judge's conclusions regarding the respondent's contributions to the down payment and mortgage.

The self-represented moving party sought various forms of relief relating to her appeal of orders directing the partition and sale of two properties and a reference for an accounting.

The motion judge dismissed requests to stay the proceedings, expedite the appeal, and intervene in the ongoing reference, noting that several of the orders appealed likely fell outside the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction.

However, the motion judge granted an extension of time to perfect the appeal, finding that the delay was explained by the moving party's difficulties navigating the rules and that the interests of justice favoured allowing the appeal to proceed.

The court approved a proposed settlement and certified the action for settlement purposes under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The class consists of approximately 100 investors in a failed real estate limited partnership project.

The settlement restores the class members’ proportionate interest in the property, now with greater development density and less debt, and is considered generous.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved class counsel’s fees.

The action will continue only as between the defendants for unresolved crossclaims.

The decision concerns two motions to oppose the confirmation of a report of Associate Justice Robinson regarding construction lien and contract claims arising from a Toronto hospital project.

The court confirms the report, finding no error in the associate judge’s analysis of whether Kelson had a direct contract with Sjostrom, the effect of a change order on Amar’s scope of work, and the sufficiency of evidence for claimed damages.

The court upholds the associate judge’s findings that Kelson breached its contract with Amar but that Sjostrom failed to prove its damages, and dismisses both motions.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Casullo J. dated December 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

This decision addresses costs and pre-judgment interest following an eight-day trial involving two separate actions.

In the first action, Sjostrom Sheet Metal Ltd.'s lien and contract claims against Geo A. Kelson Company Limited were dismissed, leading to Kelson being awarded costs.

In the second action, A. Amar and Associates Ltd. successfully proved its contract claim against Kelson, resulting in Amar being awarded judgment and costs.

The court fixed Kelson's costs against Sjostrom at $123,270.92 and Amar's costs against Kelson at $173,025.17.

Pre-judgment interest for Amar was set from the date its statement of claim was issued, emphasizing that issues are framed by pleadings.

The decision applied principles of proportionality and offers to settle, awarding substantial indemnity costs from the date of relevant offers.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from multiple motions and applications.

Andrew Clifford Miracle's applications (vexatious litigant, security for costs, bankruptcy motion) were dismissed.

Glenn Bogue's motions (solicitors' lien, summary judgment) were largely successful.

Rod Gram's summary judgment motion was dismissed, but his motion to dismiss Miracle's counterclaim was granted.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Glenn Bogue for his successful motions and to the Receiver for an abandoned motion by Miracle.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding Miracle's conduct not egregious enough, and reserved costs between Gram and Miracle.

This decision addresses a defendant's motion for relief concerning undertakings, refusals, and "under-advisements" in a wrongful dismissal action.

The court ruled on a preliminary issue to strike certain evidence filed by the plaintiff, striking an affidavit filed improperly but allowing other materials.

The primary focus was on the disclosure of the plaintiff's mental health records.

The court ordered that the plaintiff could redact identifying third-party information from the records, and that the redacted records be disclosed only to the defendant's counsel, not to the defendant directly, due to a demonstrated serious risk to the plaintiff's mental health.

Costs were reserved for written submissions.

This ruling addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

The defendant, as the successful party, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis or, alternatively, partial indemnity.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendant, considering the complexity and importance of the motion to both parties.

This motion concerned the costs of a plaintiff's motion on undertakings and refusals.

The substantive issues were resolved at the outset of the hearing when the defendants capitulated to all of the plaintiff's demands.

The court distinguished the case from situations where parties settle "except for costs" before the hearing, noting the defendants' last-minute concession after the plaintiff had fully prepared for an opposed motion and the defendants had filed no responding materials.

The court found the defendants' strategy was one of delay to avoid cost consequences.

Consequently, the plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements, for the motion, rejecting the plaintiff's request for full indemnity or costs incurred prior to the motion's commencement.

Following a summary judgment mini-trial where the plaintiff was awarded $559,926.18 for breach of trust under the Construction Act, the court determined costs and interest.

The court found the defendants' withholding of trust funds to be unreasonable and unjustified, warranting substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff was awarded $131,776.36 in costs and pre-judgment interest at 1.5%.

This action concerned a debt owed under a back-dated lease agreement between the Plaintiff, JCA & Associates Inc., and the Defendants, 2372618 Ontario Limited (NYX Lounge), Bruno Pisani, and Vincent Pisani.

The central dispute was whether the lease was signed in May 2014 or in June 2015 and back-dated to May 2014.

The Plaintiff argued the latter, asserting the lease was to reimburse its principal's contributions after a failed business relationship.

The Defendants contended the lease was signed in 2014 and subsumed by a subsequent shareholders agreement, converting the debt into a capital contribution.

The court found in favour of the Plaintiff, determining the lease was signed in June 2015 and back-dated, and that all Defendants were jointly and severally liable, interpreting the term "or" in the lessee definition as "and" to avoid commercial absurdity.

The Plaintiff was awarded $100,341.03 in damages.

The plaintiff moved to compel answers to undertakings and refused questions from the examinations for discovery of the Toronto Region and Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the City of Toronto.

The plaintiff also sought an order compelling representatives of both defendants to re-attend examination.

The court adjourned the portion of the motion regarding undertakings sine die.

For the refused questions, the court ordered TRCA and the City to provide written answers to several specific questions, while dismissing others.

The court denied the request for re-attendance at oral examination, ordering that all further questions arising from ordered answers and undertakings be addressed in writing.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant failed to close on an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendant claimed she was misled about the legality of a basement apartment.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting that even if the defendant discovered the basement was not a legal rental unit after signing, she never raised it as a reason for not closing and had requested extensions for other reasons.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for the shortfall in the resale price and carrying costs.

Following a judgment in favour of the plaintiff (HC) for breach of contract and dismissal of the defendant's (K) counterclaim, this decision addresses costs.

HC sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing its complete success, K's unmeritorious counterclaim, and K's conduct in protracting proceedings.

K contended the claimed costs were excessive and that HC had only mixed success.

The court found HC entirely successful and entitled to partial indemnity costs up to its first Rule 49 offer, and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court drew an adverse inference against K for failing to provide its own bill of costs when challenging HC's quantum and made a minor adjustment for limited duplication of counsel.