John D. Middlebro’

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a four-day trial where Kim Pearson's claim for $155,629.92 was largely successful, resulting in a principal balance of $50,989.17, while Renuka Bhansingh's claim was dismissed.

The court found Kim Pearson to be the more successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

Considering Rule 57 factors, the court reduced the costs sought by Kim Pearson from $59,330.68 to $50,000.00, accounting for some divided success on minor issues and the limited utility of certain expert spreadsheets.

The respondent, John Corcoran, was ordered to pay $50,000.00 in costs to Kim Pearson.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful application by the respondents.

The respondents, Bart Toby and the Town of Saugeen Shores, sought substantial indemnity costs, or partial indemnity, while Weichold Limited sought partial indemnity.

The applicant argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court determined the matter was not complex or novel and awarded partial indemnity costs to all respondents, noting that an offer to settle by Toby and Saugeen Shores, though served too late for full substantial indemnity, would have avoided the hearing.

This trial concerned a dispute between former friends over funds from the sale of a property held in trust.

The applicants, Kim Pearson and Renuka Bhansingh, sought an accounting and payment from the respondent, John Corcoran, who held the property title and later the net sale proceeds in a savings account.

The court affirmed the existence of a trust between Kim Pearson and John Corcoran but dismissed Renuka Bhansingh's claim for a trust interest.

The court determined the total amount owed to Kim Pearson by calculating the net proceeds, authorized payments, accrued interest, and income taxes paid by the respondent, and awarded the respondent a reduced amount for trustee compensation.

The Plaintiff, Craig Frohlich, sought substantial indemnity costs after successfully obtaining declaratory relief, an injunction, and nominal damages in a dispute with his cottage neighbours, John and Diane Ferraro.

The Ferraros' counterclaim for a prescriptive easement was dismissed.

Frohlich argued he met or exceeded his offer to settle, entitling him to substantial indemnity costs post-offer.

The court found that Frohlich's offer to settle was broader than the relief ultimately granted at trial, particularly regarding property covered by water.

Therefore, Frohlich did not meet or exceed his offer, and partial indemnity costs were awarded throughout.

The court reduced the total partial indemnity costs from approximately $41,000 to $36,000, citing the Plaintiff's delay in amending his claim prior to trial as a factor in encouraging settlement.

The plaintiff property owner brought an action for trespass and an injunction against the defendant neighbours, who counterclaimed for a prescriptive easement over the dry land portion of the plaintiff's water lot.

The court found that the defendants' historical use of the land was either with the express or implied permission of the plaintiff and his predecessors, defeating the claim for a prescriptive easement.

The court granted the plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering the dry portions of the water lot and awarded nominal damages for trespass.

A contractor brought a construction lien action against homeowners for unpaid invoices relating to electrical work performed on a newly constructed log home.

The homeowners argued the claim was unenforceable because the agreement was not in writing as required by the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and counterclaimed for damages for alleged defective work.

The court held that although the oral agreement contravened the statutory requirement for a written future performance agreement, it would be inequitable to invalidate the contract under s. 93(2) because the work was substantially performed and the homeowners received benefit.

The contractor was not entitled to a materials markup, travel time charges, or reimbursement for newly purchased equipment, but otherwise proved entitlement to payment.

The counterclaim alleging defective work and damages was dismissed for lack of evidence.