John V. Kranjc

Following a trial under the Simplified Procedure regarding a construction contract dispute, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the defendants were the more successful parties, their recovery was mitigated by their lack of success on certain counterclaims and their unwavering position that the contract was fixed-price.

The court also found that neither party's offer to settle met the strict requirements of Rule 49.10.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $47,382.86.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for the unpaid balance of a custom home construction contract.

The defendants counterclaimed for construction deficiencies and intentional infliction of mental distress.

The court found the contract was a 'time and material' contract, not a fixed price contract, but reduced the plaintiff's claim due to a failure to provide proper accounting, awarding $44,299.51 on a quantum meruit basis.

The court also found the plaintiff breached the contract regarding the concrete basement floor and stairs, awarding the defendants $88,333 to remedy the defects.

The claims for delay and mental distress were dismissed.

The defendants, based in Quebec, moved to set aside service of the statement of claim outside Ontario and to stay the proceeding on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiffs, based in Ontario, sued for breach of contract and warranty regarding allegedly defective spas.

The court found that the contract was made in Ontario through the plaintiffs' continuous acceptance of terms, justifying service outside Ontario under Rule 17.02.

The court also declined to stay the proceeding, finding that while Quebec had jurisdiction over a related action, it was not clearly a more appropriate forum for this specific dispute.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a guardianship decision appointing the applicant as guardian of the person and property of an incapable individual, the court addressed costs.

The applicant sought costs against one respondent who had opposed the application.

The respondent argued that costs should be paid from the incapable person's assets and that the applicant’s settlement offer should not affect the award.

The court held that the applicant was successful and entitled to costs because the respondent opposed the application, and that the settlement offer was not determinative.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis in the all‑inclusive amount of $10,000 payable by the respondent.

The applicant daughter sought appointment as guardian of property and personal care for an incapable elderly parent diagnosed with Alzheimer dementia.

The stepfather, who held existing continuing powers of attorney for property and personal care, opposed the application and argued guardianship was unnecessary.

The court considered the statutory framework under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and whether the existing powers of attorney continued to serve the incapable person’s best interests.

Although no misconduct by the attorney was established, the evidence showed the applicant had long managed the incapable person’s medical and personal care decisions and was best positioned to continue doing so.

The court concluded that no less restrictive alternative was adequate and appointed the applicant guardian of both property and personal care.

Following dismissal of a motion for production of documents, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court considered allegations made by the moving party against opposing counsel and a physician defendant, including claims of document alteration and misleading the court.

The court found the allegations unsupported and characterized them as serious and scurrilous.

Applying the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that such unfounded allegations justified substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were awarded against the plaintiff in favour of the physician defendant on a substantial indemnity basis and modest costs to another defendant.

In an action concerning an alleged conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of her share of her late father's estate, the plaintiff moved for further production of pre-2004 medical records from the defendant doctor and the federal government regarding her father's shock therapy in 1969 or 1970.

The defendant Birch also moved to compel the plaintiff to answer a refusal to obtain records from Bell Canada regarding an alleged wiretap.

The court dismissed all motions, finding the plaintiff's production requests lacked relevance and violated the principle of proportionality, and that Birch's motion for Bell Canada records was also disproportionate given the minimal relevance and alternative remedies available.

Following a trial concerning an alleged fundamental breach of a commercial lease, the court issued a separate ruling addressing costs.

Although the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining judgment and defeating the counterclaim, the success was characterized as mixed because the damages awarded were significantly lower than claimed and several claims were dismissed.

The court also criticized both parties and their principals for unreliable evidence and a poorly drafted lease that unnecessarily complicated the trial.

However, the plaintiff had delivered a Rule 49 offer to settle that was bettered by the trial result.

Considering the offer and the factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs payable by one defendant to the plaintiff at $50,000 all inclusive.