John D. Campbell

The court considered whether the assessment of costs following settlement should be conducted by an assessment officer or by a judge.

The plaintiffs sought to have the court fix costs, while the defendants argued for assessment by an assessment officer under Rule 57.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that, as the matter settled before trial and the court had only a cursory knowledge of the facts, the assessment should be conducted by an assessment officer as contemplated by the Rules.

The court encouraged the parties to attempt to resolve costs without assessment if possible.

Following a three-day trial in which the defendant was wholly successful in defending a solicitor negligence action arising from an alleged wrongful dismissal, the defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued for a lower amount based on their own trial costs and a prior security for costs order.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the importance of the issues to the defendant's professional reputation and the complexity of the taxation issues involved.

The court awarded the defendant costs in the requested amount of $51,299.61 all-inclusive, finding it reasonable and proportional.

The plaintiff, a CPA, sued his former lawyer for breach of contract and solicitor negligence, alleging improper advice regarding tax liability on a forgiven employment loan.

The plaintiff claimed the lawyer failed to advise him that he would be responsible for taxes on a $125,000 loan forgiveness from his former employer, Gemstar, and that Gemstar had agreed to pay these taxes.

The defendant lawyer asserted he advised the plaintiff that the documents did not obligate Gemstar to pay taxes and that the plaintiff, as a CPA, was aware of the tax implications of loan forgiveness.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence unreliable and preferred the defendant's, concluding that Gemstar never agreed to pay the taxes and that the lawyer provided correct advice regarding the loan forgiveness extinguishing the debt.

The court dismissed the action, finding no breach of the standard of care or compensable damages, and no loss of a real chance to sue Gemstar or negotiate a better deal.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiff's benefits were terminated in March 2013, but he did not commence his action until July 2016, arguing that the limitation period was delayed by ongoing appeals and his mental incapacity.

The court found that the termination of benefits created a fully ripened claim, informal appeals did not delay the limitation clock, and the plaintiff failed to prove he lacked the capacity to commence a proceeding.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed.

The appellant, Mark Waters, appealed a Master's decision ordering him to pay $25,000 as security for costs.

Waters, a former CFO, sued his lawyers, Richard Furlong and Furlong Collins, for negligent advice regarding the tax implications of a severance agreement.

After commencing the action, Waters moved to Nova Scotia, prompting the respondents to seek security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a).

The Master granted the order, finding Waters had not provided robust evidence of easily realizable assets in a reciprocating jurisdiction.

On appeal, Waters argued the Master erred in assessing his assets and the merits of the case.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Master's exercise of discretion, finding no palpable and overriding error in the assessment of Waters' evidence regarding assets or the preliminary assessment of the case's merits.

Appellants sued their former solicitors for negligence and lost opportunity damages, claiming the solicitors failed to raise a six-year limitation period in the underlying action against Mitsubishi Motors, which was dismissed as statute-barred under a two-year limitation period.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment dismissing the misrepresentation component of the damages claim, finding the appellants had not appealed the trial judge's obiter finding of no misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an appeal is from a judgment, not from reasons, and that the appellants' appeal of the entire judgment necessarily included misrepresentation claims.

The court also held that partial summary judgment was inappropriate as the misrepresentation claims were intertwined with other claims proceeding to trial.

The Kilislian parties brought a motion for leave to vary a consent timetable to permit the late delivery of an expert damages report.

The court had previously ordered all expert reports by September 30, 2016, an order made on consent.

The Kilislian parties failed to deliver the damages report by the deadline, and their explanations for the delay were found to be contradictory and indicative of a conscious decision not to comply, rather than an error or inadvertent omission.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that court orders, especially in case-managed proceedings, must be respected.

Costs were awarded to the responding Shuster parties on a substantial indemnity basis.

In an addendum to previous reasons ordering a buyout of certain members of a corporation, the court addressed disputed terms of the buyout order.

The court determined that the boundaries of severed and retained parcels did not require further input, as the total property value would dictate payouts.

The court also ruled that costs, including commissions, closing costs, and capital gains taxes related to the sale of severed parcels, must be borne by the departing members who benefit from those sales.

A request for interim distributions was denied due to practical uncertainties and tax liabilities.

The Lash family owned a 30-acre cottage property through a non-profit corporation, Lash Point Association Corp. (LPAC).

A dispute arose between family members who wanted to sell their interests and leave (the leave camp) and those who wanted to keep the property for future generations (the remain camp).

The leave camp applied to wind up the corporation and sell the entire property, while the remain camp proposed a court-ordered buyout of the departing members funded by the sale of severed parcels.

The court dismissed the winding up application, finding that a buyout was a viable alternative that would allow departing members to receive fair market value while preserving the corporation's purpose for the remaining members.

The court appointed a receiver to implement the buyout process.

The plaintiff, Pixiu Solutions Inc., discontinued its action against the three defendants: Canadian General-Tower Limited, CGT Shanghai Trading Co. Ltd., and CGT Changshu Co. Ltd. The defendants subsequently brought a motion to fix their costs of the action on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued for a total costs award that would result in a "wash" against a prior costs order in its favour.

The court considered the factors under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, including the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party and the necessity of separate counsel for distinct legal entities.

The court reduced the claimed costs for Changshu and Canadian General-Tower Limited due to disproportionality and time spent on issues not involving them, but allowed Shanghai's claim in full.

The aggregate costs awarded to the defendants were found to be proportionate and within the plaintiff's reasonable expectations.

The plaintiffs sued their former lawyers for solicitor's negligence, alleging they missed a limitation period in a prior action against Mitsubishi, thereby losing the opportunity to appeal on the merits of misrepresentation, negligence, and Arthur Wishart Act claims.

The defendant law firm moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the misrepresentation component of the damages claim, arguing that the original motion judge's finding of no misrepresentations was not appealed.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal did not challenge the motion judge's findings on common law or statutory misrepresentation, thus no "lost opportunity" existed for this specific claim.

Costs were deemed a wash due to the defendants' initial broader motion.

This costs endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion for directions.

The plaintiff, Pixiu Solutions Inc., was deemed the successful party on the motion.

The defendants' offer to settle did not qualify under Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because it included a proviso regarding the mode of examination of a witness, making it not capable of acceptance without further agreement.

Consequently, Pixiu Solutions Inc. was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff and defendant previously agreed to bifurcate their breach of contract action into a liability trial and a damages trial.

After winning the liability trial, which focused on the defendant's Ontario facility, the plaintiff sought to claim damages relating to the defendant's subsidiaries in China.

The defendant moved to declare this claim an abuse of process and barred by cause of action estoppel.

The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the plaintiff should have raised the issue of the China facilities during the liability trial.

Allowing the plaintiff to advance a new theory of liability during the damages phase would violate principles of judicial economy, finality, and fairness.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant and its foreign subsidiaries for breach of a supply agreement.

The foreign subsidiaries brought motions to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff brought a motion for directions to examine witnesses pursuant to Rule 39.03 prior to the hearing of the jurisdiction motions.

The court allowed the plaintiff to cross-examine one witness and examine another, finding that the proposed evidence was possibly relevant to the issue of whether a contract connected with the dispute was made in Ontario, a presumptive connecting factor for jurisdiction.

Following summary judgment in favour of a commercial landlord for unpaid lease obligations, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The landlord had made a Rule 49 offer to settle for $75,000 plus pre-judgment interest, which the defendants did not accept.

The final judgment exceeded the settlement offer, triggering the cost consequences under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The landlord sought $25,000 in costs, reduced from a higher calculated entitlement to account for proportionality and reasonable expectations.

With no submissions from the defendants, the court awarded the requested costs.

The plaintiff landlord brought a summary judgment motion seeking damages for breach of a commercial lease after the tenant abandoned the premises before the end of the lease term.

Individual defendants argued they were not personally liable under the lease.

The court found that both individuals had signed the lease in their personal capacities in addition to signing on behalf of the corporate tenant and were therefore bound as tenants.

The defendants failed to establish any failure by the landlord to mitigate damages after the abandonment.

Judgment was granted for the landlord for damages and prejudgment interest.

Following a trial and related injunction proceedings, the successful party sought recovery of its legal costs.

The court reviewed the cost submissions of both parties and determined that the successful party was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found no reason to depart from the amounts claimed for trial preparation, attendance, and injunction-related work.

Costs were fixed in a specified amount payable by the opposing party.

In a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act concerning the alleged incapacity of an elderly business owner, the applicant sought an order sealing the court file.

Corporate respondents involved in related automotive businesses also sought a confidentiality order allowing them to file documents with the court without disclosing them to certain co‑respondents, or alternatively an “eyes‑only” order limiting disclosure to counsel.

The court held that a sealing order was appropriate under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act given the sensitive medical, personal, and commercial information involved.

However, the requested confidentiality order preventing disclosure to opposing parties was rejected as contrary to fundamental principles of civil procedure and natural justice.

The court instead extended the deemed undertaking rule to protect confidential information while maintaining ordinary disclosure obligations between parties.

The applicant insurer paid its $200,000 policy limits to the plaintiffs in a motor vehicle accident claim against its insured.

The insurer then brought an application for a declaration that it had no continuing duty to defend the insured.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the Standard Automobile Policy contains ambiguities regarding defence costs, section 245(b) of the Insurance Act clearly requires the insurer to bear the cost of defending the insured without any limitation tied to the policy limits.