Jonathan Speigel

The moving party, a non-party to the underlying action, sought leave to appeal a costs order made against him by the trial judge.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal solely on the question of whether the trial judge erred in ordering costs payable by a non-party.

Costs of the motion for leave were fixed at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

Following a trial where the plaintiff's construction lien claim was dismissed and the defendants succeeded on their counterclaim, the defendants sought costs.

The court awarded full indemnity costs of $578,793.29 to the defendants due to the egregious and deceitful conduct of the plaintiff's principal, who fabricated documents and lied repeatedly.

The court also ordered the costs to be payable jointly and severally by the plaintiff corporation and its principal personally, finding his conduct amounted to an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's construction lien action was dismissed, and the defendants' counterclaim was allowed.

This decision addresses the defendants' request for full indemnity costs against the plaintiff corporation and its principals due to egregious conduct during litigation.

The court awarded full indemnity costs against the plaintiff corporation and one principal jointly and severally, finding that principal engaged in fraud, fabricated evidence, and repeatedly lied.

Costs were not awarded against another principal, as their misconduct was not directly related to the litigation.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for over $523,000 allegedly owing on a custom home construction project, claiming the project evolved without a fixed price.

The defendants argued they had an all-inclusive contract for $540,000, which they had fully paid, and counterclaimed for construction deficiencies.

The court found the plaintiff's principal deliberately lied, fabricated documents, and created false paper trails.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim entirely, ordered the construction lien discharged, and allowed the defendants' counterclaim for $65,112.86 to repair deficiencies.

Following an 11-week construction lien trial where the plaintiff recovered $254,464 after set-off, the plaintiff sought over $1.2 million in costs and disbursements.

The plaintiff had made a Rule 49 offer to settle for $217,000, which the defendants rejected.

The court assessed the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs, noting that while the costs far exceeded the recovery, applying a strict results-based proportionality would be unfair given the defendants' refusal to settle and the consequences of Rule 49.

The court reduced several expert disbursements but awarded the plaintiff total costs of $758,421.20.

The plaintiffs, judgment creditors of the defendant husband, sought to set aside the purchase and subsequent transfer of a residential property registered primarily in the defendant wife's name.

The court found numerous 'badges of fraud' and rejected the defendants' evidence that the wife solely funded the purchase.

Concluding that the husband contributed substantially to the purchase price through pooled family resources and corporate entities he controlled, the court held that the husband held an undivided one-half interest in the property and that the transfer of his interest to his wife was void as against his creditors under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

A subcontractor brought a construction lien action and breach of contract claim against the general contractor arising from delays and termination on a warehouse construction project.

The court found the project experienced substantial delay caused by permitting issues, weather, design problems, owner‑driven restrictions on consultant access, and sequencing failures not attributable to the subcontractor.

The general contractor terminated the subcontractor after it temporarily demobilized while awaiting workable site conditions; the court held the termination was unlawful and did not constitute abandonment or repudiation.

The subcontractor was entitled to unpaid contract funds and compensation for delay‑related labour overruns and overhead costs, while the contractor received limited credits for specific deficiencies including conduit remediation and wire replacement.

The contractor’s counterclaim for completion costs largely failed because the termination prevented the subcontractor from finishing its work.

The defendant sought costs arising from a case conference made necessary after the parties failed to comply with a court-ordered timetable for advancing the litigation.

The plaintiff had failed to serve and file an amended statement of claim within the required time, resulting in delays, unnecessary correspondence between counsel, and the cancellation of a scheduled pre-trial conference.

The court found the delay primarily attributable to the plaintiff and his counsel, and also criticized uncivil communications between counsel which contributed to wasted steps and increased costs.

The court held the defendant was entitled to wasted costs incurred due to the plaintiff’s non-compliance with the timetable.

The court fixed costs at $4,909.85 and directed further steps to determine whether some or all of those costs should be paid personally by the plaintiff’s counsel under Rule 57.07.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding a $90,000 rent deposit.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the deposit was voluntary and therefore not 'required' under section 106 of the Residential Tenancies Act, meaning there was no contravention of section 135.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that section 106(6) requires interest to be paid on the deposit, calculated on the monthly declining balance.

The respondent lawyer, acting for a purchaser, sought to enforce an agreement of purchase and sale for the appellant's property.

The appellant had signed back an offer with a three-year rent-free occupancy clause.

The respondent delivered an accepted offer along with a letter and an amending agreement proposing a one-year occupancy.

The trial judge found a binding agreement for the three-year occupancy.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the delivery of the accepted offer alongside the amending agreement and letter did not constitute a clear and unequivocal acceptance of the counter-offer.

The plaintiff condominium corporation discovered three serious construction defects relating to fire safety in its buildings.

One defect was discovered in 1993, while the other two were not discovered until 1996.

The defendant municipality, which negligently inspected the buildings, argued that the discovery of the first defect triggered the limitation period for all defects arising from the same negligent inspection, rendering the entire claim statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal held that independently discoverable construction defects caused by a single act of negligence give rise to separate causes of action.

Because the interior defects could not have been reasonably discovered when the exterior defect was found, the limitation period for the interior defects ran separately and the claim was not statute-barred.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order permitting the respondent to withdraw an admission regarding damages after two and a half days of trial.

The trial judge had ordered a mistrial and awarded the appellant costs thrown away to allow them to consider their position.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's order was a discretionary one that caused no prejudice to the appellant.