3 total
Motion for leave to appeal costs order dismissed; no error in principle or excessive quantum found.
The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs order of $25,800 made against it following the dismissal of its application for document production under the Business Corporations Act.
The applicant argued the motion judge erred in principle and awarded an excessive amount.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no error in principle and no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary costs award.
Successful defendants awarded partial indemnity costs after dismissal on partial summary judgment.
Following the dismissal of the action against certain brokerage defendants on a motion for partial summary judgment, those defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of the action and the motion.
The court reaffirmed the principle that costs generally follow the event and held that the successful defendants were entitled to their costs from the plaintiff.
Although the defendants had made several settlement offers, the court determined that partial indemnity costs were appropriate rather than substantial indemnity.
The court assessed reasonable costs for the summary judgment motion and the remaining litigation steps, reducing claimed hours where the defendants had played a limited or watching role.
Total costs were fixed at $60,000 plus HST for fees and $5,249.87 for disbursements, payable by the plaintiff.
Summary judgment granted dismissing negligence claim against insurance brokers.
Insurance brokers brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of a negligence claim alleging failure to obtain adequate insurance coverage for a commercial property.
The plaintiff had pleaded that the brokers failed to secure sufficient coverage and failed to advise regarding a co‑insurance clause.
The court found the documentary email record demonstrated the insured provided specific instructions regarding coverage and did not rely on the brokers to assess insurance needs.
The plaintiff also failed to adduce expert evidence establishing breach of the standard of care and could not demonstrate any loss caused by the brokers because the insurance coverage ultimately exceeded the repair costs.
Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the broker defendants.
