Jessica Hewlett

Following a trial where the plaintiff successfully proved a construction lien and defeated the defendants' counterclaim, the court determined the costs and interest payable.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $225,504.45, while the defendants argued for $85,000.

The court awarded the plaintiff $175,000 in substantial indemnity costs, citing the defendants' unreasonable conduct, misleading evidence, and failure to accept multiple generous offers to settle.

The court also awarded prejudgment interest at the contractual rate of 25%.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce backup documents for all invoices delivered since 2017, prior to examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff sued for unpaid invoices, and the defendant counterclaimed for alleged overbilling on past invoices.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the request overbroad because it included invoices based on pre-approved prices rather than time and materials.

The court also found the request disproportionate under Rule 29.2.03, as the time and expense required to produce the documents outweighed the likely benefit, especially given the $50,000 value of the counterclaim.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant homeowners for unpaid work and extras on a residential renovation project.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages, alleging the plaintiff abandoned the project and performed defective work.

The court found that the defendants wrongfully repudiated the contract without justification, as the alleged deficiencies did not meet the high threshold required for termination.

The plaintiff was awarded $19,113.80 for the balance of the contract price and approved extras, less credits for unfinished work, and the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff was successful on an appeal of an interlocutory order and sought costs.

The plaintiff requested partial indemnity costs for the original motion and substantial indemnity costs for the appeal, citing the defendants' aggressive threats against the plaintiff's counsel and procedural misconduct.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that no costs should be awarded.

Applying the principle that substantial indemnity costs are justified by reprehensible conduct, the court awarded the plaintiff its full requested costs of $11,856.33.

The applicant mother sought interim child and spousal support, while the respondent father sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed the father's income at $300,000 and the mother's income at $100,000 for the purposes of interim support.

The father was ordered to pay the Table amount of child support for five children, continue paying educational expenses, and contribute a lump sum of $3,000 per month for other section 7 expenses.

The father's motion for the sale of the matrimonial home was adjourned sine die as the property was already the subject of parallel power of sale proceedings in civil court.

The applicant, an 81-year-old widow, brought an urgent motion for a Mareva injunction and a Norwich order against the respondent, who had acted as a bookkeeper for the applicant's late husband.

The applicant alleged that the respondent fraudulently transferred $235,567.90 from a joint bank account to her own accounts.

The court granted an interim freezing order over the respondent's bank accounts, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud and a serious risk of dissipation.

The court also granted a Norwich order requiring the bank to disclose the respondent's account information to assist in tracing the funds.