C. J. Brown

The plaintiff developer entered into agreements of purchase and sale with the defendant for commercial properties, which included a mutual lease condition for a leaseback arrangement.

As the condition deadline approached, the defendant assured the plaintiff it would continue negotiating the leases but secretly sought board approval to sell the properties to a third party.

The defendant then terminated the agreements.

The court found the defendant breached its duty of good faith and honest performance, and was liable for negligent misrepresentation.

Applying promissory estoppel, the court held the defendant could not rely on its strict contractual rights to terminate.

The plaintiff was awarded $15.5 million in damages for lost profits.

The defendants brought a motion at the commencement of trial to exclude a late-served expert radiology report from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff argued the report was necessary for a fair determination on the merits, as it analyzed actual CT images rather than relying on previous radiology reports.

The court found the evidence relevant, probative, and necessary.

The court granted leave to admit the late-served report and adjourned the trial to allow the defendants to obtain a responding radiologist's report.

The plaintiff sought costs following a seven-day trial in which she was substantially successful against the defendants for fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.

The court found the individual defendant's conduct to be reprehensible, as he fraudulently induced the plaintiff to enter into a construction contract with a fictitious company and performed shoddy work.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $286,250 plus disbursements.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application for a compliance order under section 134 of the Condominium Act to permit entry into the respondents' unit to inspect and confirm the removal of Kitec plumbing.

The respondents had repeatedly refused entry to the corporation's engineers, preventing the building from being certified as Kitec-free.

The court found that Kitec plumbing is a dangerous condition and that the respondents breached their obligations under the Act and the condominium's declaration.

The court granted the compliance order and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant.

The plaintiff was wholly successful in a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement regarding environmental pollution.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendant overtly breached its settlement obligations and engaged in dilatory tactics.

The court found the defendant's conduct to be reprehensible, including attempting to secretly transfer assets and blocking remedial work.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $212,532.99.

The successful defendants sought their costs of the trial.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct throughout the litigation was egregious and reprehensible, including forging a signature and improperly registering notices on title to delay the sale of a property.

As a result of this malicious and unreasonable conduct, the court awarded the defendants their costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion in writing for default judgment for possession and foreclosure against the defendant unit owner for unpaid common expenses.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court granted the motion, ordering possession and foreclosure of the equity of redemption in favour of the condominium corporation, with a condition to pay the second defendant's mortgage upon sale.

Following an application where the respondent successfully established coverage under her homeowners' insurance policy, the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the offer did not trigger the cost consequences of Rule 49.10.

However, as the respondent was wholly successful in defeating the application, the court awarded her partial indemnity costs in the amount of $16,073.12.