Jonathan Miller

The respondent was entirely successful in defending an injunction motion and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued that costs should be deferred to the judge hearing the balance of the application.

The court declined to defer costs, noting the uncertainty of the application proceeding.

While the court found the applicants' conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs, it noted their improper conduct in splitting their case and unnecessarily complicating the motion.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $60,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff property developer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to compel the defendant purchasers to vacate a condominium townhouse and prevent their re-entry.

The defendants had taken interim occupancy but failed to close the transaction, refused to sign extension agreements, made unauthorized alterations to the unit, and engaged in abusive and harassing behaviour toward the plaintiff's staff.

The court granted the mandatory injunction, finding the defendants were trespassers, the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case, and the plaintiff was suffering irreparable harm to its property rights and reputation.

The applicants, who were the developer and manager of the respondent condominium corporation, sought an interlocutory or permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from evicting them from a Visitor Centre they leased.

The respondent had terminated the management agreements and the lease following a breakdown in the relationship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the termination of the agreements, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience strongly favoured the respondent, which needed the Visitor Centre to manage the property.

The plaintiff invested $5 million in preferred shares of a financially troubled credit union pursuant to an offering statement.

The credit union was subsequently placed into administration and liquidation following the discovery of a complex mortgage fraud and the issuance of large, improper loans.

The plaintiff sued the credit union's directors and external auditors, alleging a material misrepresentation in the offering statement regarding the use of 'appraised values' for mortgage approvals.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding no material misrepresentation, no causation, and that the defendants had established a statutory defence.

The court also denied the plaintiff's mid-trial motion to amend the pleadings, ruling the new allegation was statute-barred.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing her personal injury action for delay.

The action arose from an alleged injury during a massage in 2010.

The court found the plaintiff's delay was egregious and lacked a reasonable explanation, but accepted that the deadline was missed inadvertently.

Applying a contextual approach, the court concluded the defendant would suffer no actual prejudice and set aside the dismissal order, allowing the action to proceed on its merits.

Following a trial for wrongful dismissal where the plaintiff was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendant argued that its offers to settle should impact costs, that costs should be distributed due to the plaintiff's unsuccessful bad faith claims, and that the plaintiff should pay substantial indemnity costs for those allegations.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding the offers did not meet Rule 49 requirements and the bad faith claims, while unsuccessful, were not reprehensible.

The court awarded the plaintiff $171,000 in partial indemnity costs plus disbursements.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The applicant husband had been voluntarily paying $430 per month in child support based on a declared income of $46,538.

The wife sought to impute an income of $75,000 to the husband, arguing his lifestyle and business interests indicated higher earnings.

The court found a prima facie case for support, imputed the husband's income at $75,000 for the purpose of the interim motion, and ordered him to pay $682 per month in child support and $471 per month in spousal support.

Following a successful trial judgment in a contract dispute involving a loan advanced for the purchase of household contents, the successful party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to allegations of fraud raised by the opposing parties.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the unproven allegations of fraud did not justify elevated costs.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that costs should follow the event and be awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

Considering fairness, reasonableness, proportionality, and the manner in which the litigation was conducted, the court awarded the successful party $28,967 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff sued to recover $80,000 loaned to the defendants to finance their purchase of household contents, including Feng Shui stones, from the plaintiff when they purchased her home.

The defendants alleged the contract was invalid due to misrepresentation about the value of certain stones and argued that a fiduciary relationship existed arising from the plaintiff’s role as a Feng Shui advisor and fortune teller.

The court held that no fiduciary relationship existed and found no fraudulent or innocent misrepresentation regarding the stones’ value.

The transaction was a commercial sale of all household contents on an “as is” basis for a lump sum price, which the defendants knowingly accepted and partially performed by paying interest for four years.

The defendants breached the contract by refusing to repay the principal and final interest payment when the loan matured.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The action arose from a 2008 motor vehicle accident.

The court applied a contextual approach, finding that the plaintiff adequately explained the litigation delay, which was partly due to issues identifying the vehicle's owner and the defendants' delay in delivering pleadings.

The court accepted that the failure to set the action down was due to counsel's inadvertence, the motion was brought reasonably promptly, and the defendants did not suffer significant prejudice.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was granted.