Jennifer Wu

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to vary, set aside, or suspend a previous costs order.

The plaintiff argued that the court failed to adjudicate material costs considerations and that fresh evidence warranted a redetermination.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no accidental slip or omission under Rule 59.06(1), and holding that the fresh evidence would not have changed the result and could have been obtained earlier under Rule 59.06(2)(a).

The court also declined to suspend the order, noting the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct and the prejudice to the defendants.

Following the dismissal of summary judgment motions in a dispute over the purchase of hotel condominium units in the Trump International Hotel in Toronto, the successful defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded due to alleged misconduct and their success on certain factual issues, or alternatively that the amount sought was excessive.

The court held that the litigation was not a case of divided success and that the plaintiffs ultimately failed on critical factual and legal elements of their claims.

Applying the principle that costs should be fair, reasonable, and within the expectations of the parties, the court awarded the successful defendants a reduced amount.

Costs of $58,000 inclusive were ordered.

Two purchasers of hotel condominium units in the Trump International Hotel in Toronto brought test‑case summary judgment motions seeking rescission and damages based on alleged misrepresentations and an alleged breach of an Ontario Securities Commission prospectus‑exemption ruling.

The purchasers relied primarily on an “Estimated Return on Investment” document that allegedly overstated revenues and understated expenses.

The court found the document contained multiple misrepresentations but held the plaintiffs’ claims nevertheless failed because their reliance on the estimates was not objectively reasonable in light of extensive contractual disclaimers, disclosure documents, and risk warnings.

The court further held the defendants did not breach the OSC exemption ruling and that statutory securities and condominium misrepresentation provisions were not engaged.

One plaintiff’s claims were also statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff attended a status hearing to show cause why his wrongful dismissal and defamation action should not be dismissed for delay under former Rule 48.14(13).

The plaintiff, who was self-represented for much of the litigation, explained the delay was due to not receiving a certification form and suffering from severe health and family issues.

The court accepted the explanation and found the defendant would suffer no non-compensable prejudice, as documents were preserved and the defendant's claim of missing witnesses was unsubstantiated.

The action was allowed to continue and restored to the trial list with no order as to costs.

Following a motion to strike portions of a statement of claim, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to individually named defendants whose claims had been struck as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff had asserted a $10 million claim against individual employees and directors of corporate defendants without adequately pleading separate acts or interests beyond their corporate roles.

The individual defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the claims constituted tactical harassment.

The court found the claims against the individuals lacked proper particulars but concluded the circumstances did not justify elevated costs.

Partial indemnity costs were instead fixed at reduced amounts reflecting duplication of work with corporate defendants’ counsel.

The defendants moved under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim alleging civil conspiracy, unlawful interference with economic interests, trespass, and breach of confidence arising from alleged GPS tracking of the plaintiff’s service vehicles to obtain customer information.

The court held that the pleadings for civil conspiracy lacked the required material facts and particulars but granted leave to amend.

The claim for intentional interference with economic interests was struck without leave to amend because the pleadings failed to allege unlawful means directed at a third party as required by the Supreme Court’s formulation of the tort.

Allegations against individual corporate officers were struck as an abuse of process for failing to plead independent tortious conduct.

Claims for trespass to chattels and breach of confidence were allowed to proceed, while the trespass to land claim was struck with leave to amend.