Jonathan Lancaster

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $144,054.57 following a successful application.

The applicants argued for no costs, asserting the matter was a case of first impression, or alternatively $30,000.

The court held that costs should follow the cause because the parties were advancing private financial interests rather than a public interest.

Applying the Boucher principles, the court found the respondent's time spent was excessive compared to the applicants' and reduced the requested fees by approximately 40 percent, fixing costs at $75,000 plus HST and disbursements.

Following a trial where the plaintiff recovered $65,000 in quantum meruit but failed on the contractual claim, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought $41,077.25 on a partial indemnity scale, while the defendants argued for $10,000, noting the plaintiff recovered exactly what was offered in 2013.

The court awarded the plaintiff $20,000 in costs, discounting the amount to reflect the partial nature of recovery and the defendants' prior offer.

The plaintiff, a commercial real estate broker, arranged mortgage refinancing for the defendant's property while employed at a brokerage.

After the plaintiff left his employment, he continued to provide services to the defendant to finalize the refinancing, but the defendant never signed a proposed letter of direction setting out the plaintiff's fee.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the breach of contract claim because the parties never agreed on a price.

However, the court allowed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the defendant received a benefit from the plaintiff's ongoing consulting services without a juristic reason.

The plaintiff was awarded $65,000 in quantum meruit, based on the defendant's own valuation of the services.

The applicant tenant, Old Navy, sought a declaration that a co-tenancy failure occurred under its commercial lease following the bankruptcy of another tenant, Danier Leather, entitling it to pay significantly reduced alternative rent.

The respondent landlord argued the lease provisions were ambiguous and that a co-tenancy failure required a catastrophic loss of tenants, not just one small retailer.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the tenant's application, finding its strict literal interpretation led to a commercial absurdity and violated principles of business efficacy.

The court granted the landlord's request for rectification, amending the lease to include a reciprocal termination right that had been agreed upon in the letter of intent but omitted from the final lease by mutual mistake.

The appellant, Toronto Inspection Ltd., appealed a Master's order granting a co-defendant's motion to correct the names of 'John Doe' defendants to specify the appellant.

The appellant argued that only a plaintiff has standing to bring a misnomer motion and that the 'litigating finger' test was not met.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 5.04(2) allows any party to move to correct a misnomer and that the statement of claim clearly pointed the litigating finger at the appellant as the concrete inspector.