Jessica Kuredjian

The plaintiff brought an unsuccessful motion for an injunction to prevent a property sale.

The successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the motion had no reasonable prospect of success.

The court agreed, finding the plaintiff's claim was purely monetary and the injunction was a misguided attempt at pre-judgment enforcement.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs but declined to award per diem delay costs, noting such losses must be pursued as a counterclaim rather than as costs.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $24,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The plaintiff, an unsecured creditor, brought an urgent motion for summary judgment to enforce a draft settlement agreement, or alternatively, an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of a property by the defendants, or an order that the sale proceeds be paid into court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the summary judgment relief was not included in the notice of motion.

Furthermore, the proceeds of the sale were entirely consumed by a first mortgage, leaving no funds for the plaintiff.

The court also held that the plaintiff failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test for an injunction, as he did not establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, given his claim was merely for repayment of a loan.

The plaintiff in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding film capacitors moved for approval of a settlement with the Panasonic defendants and for approval of class counsel fees.

The court found the $1.35 million settlement, which included valuable cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair and reasonable despite being heavily discounted from the estimated exposure.

The court also approved the requested class counsel fees of 25% of the settlement, but ordered the payment to be split into two installments to incentivize counsel to advance the litigation more expeditiously.

The plaintiffs in a price-fixing class action regarding electrolytic capacitors moved for court approval of a $5.9 million settlement with the Panasonic defendants, as well as approval of class counsel fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlement, which included significant cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the retainer agreements and the requested class counsel fees of $1,487,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $141,866.96, noting the complexity and risk of the litigation.

The plaintiff was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision for which the defendant admitted liability.

The court found that the plaintiff sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function, specifically chronic pain and somatic symptom disorder.

The court awarded $100,000 in non-pecuniary general damages, $394,800.32 for future loss of income, $19,655.37 for out-of-pocket expenses, and various amounts for future care costs, while dismissing the claim for past loss of income.

The plaintiff brought a construction lien action against the defendants for unpaid invoices relating to the installation of an asphalt driveway, concrete curbs, and a concrete pad.

The defendants argued the work was defective because water drained toward their neighbour's property rather than the street.

The court found that the plaintiff had advised the defendants prior to construction that the street elevation prevented drainage to the street, and the defendants had instructed the plaintiff to proceed with drainage toward the neighbour's property.

The court concluded the plaintiff performed the work in accordance with the contract and ordered the defendants to pay the outstanding invoice plus contractual interest.