Joseph M. Sereda

The applicant, charged with 11 counts of fraud, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter for unreasonable delay.

The total delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued the delay was justified due to the case's complexity and transitional exceptional circumstances.

The court agreed, finding the volume of disclosure, number of witnesses, and nature of the fraud allegations made the case particularly complex.

Alternatively, the court found transitional exceptional circumstances applied, as the Crown reasonably relied on the previous law and the applicant's actions contributed to the delay.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a summary judgment motion where the Smiths' defence and counterclaim were dismissed, and Kheen was granted summary judgment with full indemnity costs.

The court applied the factors stipulated in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

It found the costs claimed by Kheen, including legal fees and disbursements, to be reasonable, necessary, and directly related to the complex litigation, which was necessitated by the Smiths' conduct in attempting to avoid their legal obligations.

Kheen was awarded $23,070 in costs (inclusive of HST) and $2,359.32 in disbursements, payable jointly and severally by Nadine Theresa Smith and Shane Davidson Smith.

The court assessed costs following a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' action and the Smiths' counterclaim, with costs payable on a full indemnity basis.

The defendants by counterclaim, Damandeep-Singh Aujla and Daman Aujla Professional Corporation, sought full indemnity costs.

The court found the proceedings complex, involving multiple parties and transactions, and noted the Smiths' lack of credibility, delay tactics, and refusal to admit key facts.

The claims against Mr. Aujla, a professional, were of great importance and impugned his integrity.

The court found the hourly rates of counsel reasonable and awarded full indemnity costs to Damandeep-Singh Aujla and Daman Aujla Professional Corporation, totaling $43,486.92, after disallowing Westlaw Research as an overhead expense.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion where the counterclaim brought by Nadine Theresa Smith and Shane Davidson Smith against Capital Direct Lending Corporation was dismissed.

The court awarded Capital Direct Lending Corporation costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding the Smiths' counterclaim to be meritless, lacking credibility, and based on evasive and delaying conduct.

The billing rates and services rendered by counsel for Capital Direct were deemed appropriate and reasonable.

The plaintiff and all defendants by counterclaim brought motions for summary judgment against the defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim (the Smiths) concerning a property refinancing.

The Smiths alleged misrepresentation of mortgage debt and breach of trust/negligence by the solicitors involved.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding the Smiths' position lacked credibility due to their failure to disclose the true mortgage amount, their acceptance of the refinancing proceeds, and the absence of any actual loss.

The court granted summary judgment to the moving parties, dismissing the Smiths' counterclaim and ordering full indemnity costs, deeming the action unmeritorious.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant regarding a restaurant business dispute, and the defendant counterclaimed.

Shortly before trial, the plaintiff discontinued its action.

The defendant offered to discontinue the counterclaim on a without-costs basis, which the plaintiff rejected.

The defendant then discontinued the counterclaim.

Both parties sought costs of the discontinued proceedings.

The court dismissed both claims for costs, finding that the general rule of indemnifying a successful party applied and neither party could claim success on the merits.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of the costs motion, as the plaintiff had rejected a sensible offer to resolve the matter without costs.