Jimmie Zi Chen

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim for repayment of money transferred to the respondents over a period of years.

The appellants alleged the transfers were loans and investments, including a $100,000 investment in real estate that appreciated significantly.

The respondents contended the transfers were payments for room and board and other expenses for the appellants' daughter.

The trial judge dismissed all claims and ordered costs against the appellants.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's treatment of evidence, her dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, or her application of the Limitations Act.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendants, as the successful party, sought partial and substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs argued for no costs, asserting divided success and impecuniosity.

The court found the defendants were entirely successful, rejected the plaintiffs' arguments regarding divided success and impecuniosity, and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, totaling $177,123.68.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for over $500,000, alleging they made various loans and investments to the defendants over a decade while their daughter lived with the defendants as a homestay student.

The defendants argued the funds were payments for the daughter's room, board, tuition, and other expenses.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action in its entirety, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of the alleged loans and investments.

Furthermore, the court held that all of the plaintiffs' claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiffs failed to act with due diligence in pursuing the alleged debts.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order.

The tenants argued they were denied procedural fairness when the LTB proceeded with the hearing in their absence after they requested an adjournment.

The Divisional Court found the LTB followed its own rules, as the tenants failed to provide evidence supporting their adjournment request prior to the hearing.

The court also upheld the LTB's refusal to admit a doctor's note as fresh evidence on reconsideration, noting it lacked sufficient detail.

The motion to quash was granted and an eviction date was set.

At a case conference regarding the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, the defendants indicated an intention to challenge the validity of service in Hong Kong under the Hague Convention.

The defendants' counsel appeared on a limited scope retainer solely to contest service.

The court held that it would be an abuse of process to allow the defendants to delay adjudication by retaining counsel incrementally.

The court scheduled the plaintiff's motion for default judgment and directed that any motions by the defendants to set aside service or lift the noting in default be heard at the same time.

Following a successful application by the condominium corporation for oppression and compliance orders, the applicant sought $155,000 in full indemnity costs.

The respondent unit owner's extreme demands for disability accommodation and unreasonable litigation conduct significantly increased the costs of the proceeding.

The court found that while the respondent's conduct was egregious, an elevated scale of costs was not warranted as the applicant did not beat its settlement offers.

The court awarded $75,000 in partial indemnity costs, noting the applicant's right to recover further costs under section 134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998.