Joshua David Hemmings

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a successful motion by the defendant.

The court considers the timing of the defendant’s costs submissions, the scale of costs (partial vs. substantial indemnity), the effect of offers to settle, and the conduct of the parties.

The court ultimately awards the defendant $20,490 in costs, finding no basis for a higher scale and that the amount is reasonable and proportionate.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The plaintiff, a trim carpenter, brought a construction lien and breach of contract action against the general contractor and the homeowner for unpaid work on a residential project.

The court found that the general contractor wrongfully repudiated the oral subcontract by failing to pay the plaintiff and denying him access to the site.

The court also found that the general contractor made a pre-contractual misrepresentation that formed a collateral warranty, causing the contract price to revert to its original higher amount when the condition was breached.

The plaintiff was awarded a lien of $16,225, for which both defendants were jointly and severally liable, and $7,200 in breach of contract damages against the general contractor.

The plaintiff moved for leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property she previously owned, alleging it was fraudulently transferred by the second mortgagee to a newly incorporated company under a power of sale.

The court found multiple 'badges of fraud', including a sale below market value, lack of public marketing, and a prior relationship between the parties.

Concluding there was a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the land, the court granted the CPL and awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

The appellant sought leave to amend his statement of claim to correct a misnomer by substituting the proper defendant after the expiry of the limitation period.

The motion judge refused the amendment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant satisfied the "litigation finger test" for misnomer established in Lloyd v. Clark.

The appellant knew the proper defendant but failed to sue the proper party, and the intended defendant knew it was the intended defendant before the limitation period expired.

The court granted leave to amend and awarded costs.

The member, an occasional teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for impersonating his wife to complete her occasional teaching assignments on numerous occasions over a three-year period.

The member used his wife's gender-neutral name to deceive the school board and gain financially.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a nine-month suspension of his teaching certificate, and the completion of a professional ethics course.

The Committee also ordered the publication of the member's name in the College's official publication, finding that the aggravating factors of premeditated, fraudulent conduct for financial gain outweighed the mitigating factors.