4 total
The court fixed the successful plaintiffs' costs at $25,000, denying substantial indemnity costs because the defendants' opposition was not reprehensible.
This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the plaintiffs to add new defendants and amend their Statement of Claim.
The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion was unnecessarily complicated by the responding parties.
The court found the plaintiffs were entitled to costs but not on a substantial indemnity basis, as there was no reprehensible conduct by the opposing parties.
The court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable jointly and severally by the responding parties within 30 days, rejecting the suggestion to reserve costs to the trial judge.
Motion to add parties and amend pleadings granted where plaintiffs alleged corporate restructuring to defeat claims.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to add a new corporate defendant and several individual defendants, and to amend their Statement of Claim to increase damages to $8,000,000 and assert claims of fraud.
The plaintiffs alleged that the original defendant transferred its business and assets to the new corporate defendant to defeat the plaintiffs' claims regarding environmental contamination advice.
The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs moved with sufficient dispatch upon discovering the new corporation and that the allegations were more conveniently dealt with in the present action.
Tribunal reasonably interpreted s. 18 of the EPA to permit Director's orders for off-site contamination delineation.
The appellants appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal upholding a Director's order under s. 18 of the Environmental Protection Act.
The order required the appellants, as owners or former owners/occupiers of a contaminated source property, to delineate contamination that had migrated to off-site properties.
The appellants argued s. 18 was limited to future events and on-site remediation, contrasting it with the fault-based s. 17.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's broad interpretation of s. 18—that it permits off-site orders and applies to existing, ongoing, and future adverse effects—was reasonable and consistent with the modern principles of statutory interpretation.
Plaintiff permitted to proceed with discovery separately from delayed third party claim to prevent prejudice.
The plaintiff brought a motion to proceed with examinations for discovery in the main action separately from the third party claim.
The main action involved allegations of negligence against environmental consultants for failing to identify contamination prior to the plaintiff's purchase of the property.
One defendant issued a third party claim against previous owners, causing significant delays in scheduling discoveries.
The court granted the motion, finding no overlap in liability issues between the main and third party claims, and held that the plaintiff should not be prejudiced by further delays caused by the third party proceedings.
