John G. Webster

The respondent, an employee of the National Bank of Canada, developed severe allergic symptoms in April 2010 that she suspected were caused by mould exposure at her workplace.

She ceased working in August 2011 and was not diagnosed with a specific condition until February 2013, when Dr. Patel diagnosed her with a genetic deficiency affecting toxin detoxification and attributed her symptoms to mycotoxin exposure from toxic mould.

The respondent commenced an action in July 2013.

The Bank moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the limitation period commenced in February 2013 when the respondent received Dr. Patel's diagnosis.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the motion judge's application of section 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

This supplementary endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the defendant's successful summary judgment motion.

The defendant sought a partial indemnity cost award of $21,500.

The plaintiff opposed, citing impecuniosity, an excessive claim, and the defendant's professional malpractice insurance.

The court dismissed the insurance argument and, while acknowledging the plaintiff's financial hardship, found the defendant's discounted cost claim reasonable.

A cost award of $18,000 was ordered, emphasizing the plaintiff's responsibility for failing to present evidence despite adjournments.

Following two related applications argued together, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The successful party sought a global partial indemnity costs award exceeding $40,000 against two opposing parties.

The court emphasized the importance of proportionality, reasonable expectations of the parties, and compliance with Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly the requirement to exchange Costs Outlines before the hearing.

Finding the claimed amount excessive and inadequately supported by time breakdowns, the court reduced the requested costs and apportioned them separately between the two opposing parties based on their respective involvement in the proceedings.

Celadon brought an application seeking a declaration that Hoss exercised an option to purchase a leased commercial property on Celadon's behalf, pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement.

Hoss brought a separate application seeking an order requiring the landlord, Turoczi, to transfer the property to Hoss pursuant to the option.

The court found that Celadon failed to exercise its discretion to require an assignment of the lease within a reasonable time, that there was no equitable assignment of the lease, and that a subsequent Release Agreement terminated any right Celadon had to the lease.

The court also found that Hoss was in good standing under the lease when it exercised the option to purchase.

Celadon's application was dismissed, and Hoss's application was granted, ordering Turoczi to transfer the property to Hoss.

The plaintiffs commenced an action for professional negligence and breach of contract arising from a commercial real estate transaction.

After two years, a status notice was issued, and the plaintiffs requested a status hearing to prevent the action from being dismissed for delay.

The defendants opposed the continuation of the action, arguing the plaintiffs failed to adequately explain the delay or demonstrate an absence of prejudice.

The Master reviewed the conflicting jurisprudence on status hearings and concluded that, while the delay was problematic, the plaintiffs provided a sufficient explanation and the defendants suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The action was allowed to proceed subject to a strict timetable.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff’s claim and related cross-claims were dismissed, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed the reasonableness of the successful defendant’s bill of costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court scrutinized preparation time, trial attendance, and written submissions, reducing several claimed amounts and rejecting certain disbursements including unexplained agency fees, meal expenses, legal research charges lacking detail, and stationery costs treated as overhead.

The court fixed reduced amounts for several litigation stages and limited disbursements.

Counsel were directed to calculate the final payable costs based on the court’s determinations.