John Chapman

The defendants sought costs of $41,082.45 on a full indemnity basis after successfully dismissing the plaintiffs' defamation action as a SLAPP suit.

The plaintiffs agreed the amount was reasonable but argued it should be reduced by approximately $14,000, which the defendants allegedly raised through a GoFundMe campaign, citing the principle of indemnity.

The court rejected this argument, holding that costs inquiries are restricted to examining the lawyer's bill, not the successful party's means of payment.

The court awarded the defendants $41,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs brought two defamation actions against the defendants arising from tweets and emails that characterized the plaintiffs' own tweets as homophobic and transphobic.

The defendants moved to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the expressions related to matters of public interest and that, while the defamation claim had some merit, the defendants had a valid defence of fair comment given the highly politicized and hyperbolic nature of Twitter.

The actions were dismissed as strategic litigation against public participation.

The parties entered into two agreements to lease a heritage building for an event venue and restaurant.

Disputes arose over the scope of the landlord's work, specifically roof repairs, and the execution of a formal lease.

The landlord sought to terminate the agreements, arguing they were too uncertain to be enforceable and that the tenant had defaulted.

The tenant sought declarations that the agreements were binding and that the landlord was in breach.

The court held that both agreements were binding and enforceable, and that a formal lease was not a condition precedent.

The court found that both parties had breached their obligations, resulting in a contractual stalemate, and dismissed the landlord's application to evict the tenant.

The parties entered into two agreements to lease a heritage building for an event venue and restaurant.

Disputes arose over the scope of the landlord's work, specifically roof repairs, and the execution of a formal lease.

The landlord sought to terminate the agreements, arguing they were too uncertain to be enforceable and that the tenant had defaulted.

The tenant sought declarations that the agreements were binding and that the landlord was in breach.

The court held that both agreements were binding and enforceable, and that a formal lease was not a condition precedent.

The court found that both parties had breached their obligations, resulting in a contractual stalemate, and dismissed the landlord's application to evict the tenant.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an action brought by CIT Financial Ltd. against several defendants, which was dismissed on summary judgment as statute-barred.

The defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale, including legal and expert fees.

The court considered the complexity, importance, and reasonable expectations of the parties.

While the court found the defendants were diligent in bringing their summary judgment motion after discoveries, it significantly reduced the claimed expert fees for Zeifmans (to one-third) and Duff & Phelps (to 50%).

This reduction was due to the defendants' experts' unreasonable refusal to cooperate with the plaintiff's expert, leading to unnecessary duplication of work in calculations.

Ultimately, CIT Financial Ltd. was ordered to pay the defendants legal fees totaling $1,706,147.92 and reduced disbursements (including expert fees) totaling $550,182.34.

Centoco Holdings Limited and KS Centoco Ltd. ("Centoco") brought two motions.

The first sought to compel Magna International Inc. ("Magna") to produce its CEO, Donald Walker, for examination for discovery in a winding-up action, arguing he was instrumental in a key business decision.

The second motion sought to compel Magna to answer refused questions and produce documents related to its airbag business and "Directed Source Mark-Ups" in the main action, and questions regarding additional documents produced post-discovery.

The court granted both motions, finding Centoco had a prima facie right to examine Walker and that the requested information on the airbag business and additional documents was relevant.

The court directed counsel to narrow the scope of document production to avoid trial adjournment and adjourned the request for a further affidavit of documents.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's action for indemnity under a share purchase agreement.

The action was based on alleged breaches of a tax representation and warranty.

The defendants argued the action was statute-barred and that the plaintiff's claim for "loss of use of funds" was limited by contract.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the action was statute-barred because the six-year limitation period began when the plaintiff knew the material facts of the breach and the resulting "claim" (Revenue Canada's reassessment), not upon a demand for indemnity or its refusal.

The court also dismissed the claim for loss of use of funds beyond the contractually agreed prime rate.