Jordan Lester

The appellant challenged only the monetary component of a summary judgment finding of copyright infringement, arguing that the profits award failed to account for expenses such as labour, taxes, and rent.

The court held that under s. 35(2) of the Copyright Act, the defendant bore the onus of proving any deductions from revenues earned through infringing sales.

Because no evidentiary foundation was provided for the claimed expenses before the motion judge, and further calculations were advanced for the first time on appeal, there was no basis for appellate intervention.

The appeal was dismissed and appeal costs were fixed at $5,000 inclusive.

The defendants sought costs after a Status Hearing was resolved on consent.

The plaintiff's action had not been set down for trial within five years, prompting the defendants to schedule a case conference which the plaintiff failed to attend.

A Status Hearing was subsequently ordered.

The plaintiff eventually provided materials explaining the delay and the parties agreed to a timetable.

The court found that the plaintiff's initial non-responsiveness and failure to attend the case conference caused the defendants to incur unnecessary costs.

The court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $2,500.

The defendant was partially successful on an anti-SLAPP motion, resulting in the dismissal of the majority of the plaintiffs' claims.

The defendant sought full indemnity costs and damages for bad faith.

The court awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs of $17,500, finding that while the principles of s. 137.1(7) applied, a reduction was warranted due to the plaintiffs' offer to settle and excessive time claimed.

The claim for damages under s. 137.1(9) was dismissed, as the court found the defendant's counter-offer punitive and lacked evidence of damages.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court previously dismissed the claims relating to online expressions on matters of public interest.

In these supplementary reasons, the court considered whether s. 137.1 requires the dismissal of the entire proceeding, including claims for harassment and an expression unrelated to the public interest.

The court held that 'proceeding' in s. 137.1 does not mandate an 'all or nothing' dismissal, and claims not grounded in public interest expression must be allowed to continue.

Following the plaintiff's success on the defendant's motion for summary judgment and venue change in a wrongful dismissal action, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $18,129.55, while the defendant proposed $12,000.

Applying the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion in a family law proceeding after the respondent failed to file an Answer despite being ordered to do so at a case conference.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on custody, support, or related financial matters.

The applicant, who had always been the primary caregiver, was granted sole custody, with the order silent as to access due to the respondent’s lack of involvement.

Child support was ordered in the amount of $1,734 per month based on the respondent’s income, along with proportionate contribution to section 7 expenses, annual financial disclosure obligations, and designation of the children as beneficiaries under employment benefits and life insurance.

Costs of $2,500 were also awarded to the applicant.