G. Dow

Following the dismissal of both the main action and the counterclaim, the court determined the costs payable to each party.

The defendant, a self-represented lawyer, was awarded $20,000 on a substantial indemnity basis for the main action, reduced from his claim due to a lack of evidence of lost remunerative opportunity.

The plaintiff was awarded $18,000 on a partial indemnity basis for successfully defending the counterclaim.

The court ordered a set-off, resulting in a net costs award of $2,000 payable to the defendant.

In a civil forfeiture proceeding, the interested party brought a motion to exclude seized currency from evidence, arguing that the search warrants for his residence and vehicle violated his section 8 Charter rights.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) and found that the police had established a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found, based on the party's prior drug trafficking convictions, surveillance of hand-to-hand transactions, and the practice of separating drugs from cash.

The motion to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the Attorney General.

Following a trial on damages for the repudiation of a commercial lease, the plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff claimed substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle and allegations of perjury by the defendants.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding no special circumstances or perjury.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs for the trial and re-ordered the payment of costs from a prior summary judgment motion, resulting in a total costs award of $55,461.70 to the plaintiff.

Following a motor vehicle collision, a jury awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in general damages and $14,000 for past loss of income.

The defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's soft tissue injuries did not meet the verbal threshold under section 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed the medical evidence, including surveillance showing the plaintiff conducting fitness sessions, and concluded the plaintiff failed to prove she sustained a permanent impairment of a physical, mental, or psychological function.

The claim for general damages was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the dismissal of an action arising from Minutes of Settlement regarding a failed partnership investment.

The settlement required arbitration to conclude by March 31, 2012, but the parties continued to negotiate and schedule arbitration dates well past this deadline.

When the defendants retained new counsel in 2016, they argued the arbitrator was not properly appointed and the deadline had passed.

The court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, finding the defendants' conduct impliedly promised not to rely on the strict limitation period.

The motion was granted, the dismissal was set aside, and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle-pedestrian collision.

The defendants argued the driver had no opportunity to avoid the collision, relying on evidence of the plaintiff's erratic behaviour and sudden entry onto the roadway.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a genuine issue for trial existed because the driver's failure to see the plaintiff until immediately before impact raised credibility issues regarding proper lookout.

The court declined to use its enhanced fact-finding powers, noting the matter was set for a jury trial where credibility assessments are best made.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim regarding the unauthorized discharge of a mortgage held in his self-directed RRSP.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim against the third-party mortgagors was statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act, meaning the plaintiff suffered no recoverable loss from the defendants' actions.

Alternatively, the court found that the plaintiff had actually agreed to the discharge in 2007.

The action was dismissed, but the successful defendants were denied costs due to their failure to properly document the discharge and inform the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal, while the defendant employer claimed the plaintiff had resigned.

The court found that the plaintiff was terminated, as his conduct did not objectively reflect a clear and unequivocal intention to resign.

The court awarded a nine-month notice period, unpaid vacation pay, health benefits expenses, and damages for lost bonuses, finding the bonus was an integral part of compensation.

The plaintiff's claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order requiring him to attend an examination for discovery with accommodations, arguing his medical condition (vascular malformation and conversion disorder) made him physically unable to attend without serious risk of harm.

The plaintiff also appealed the Master's costs award, arguing the Master was functus officio when extending the time for the defendant's costs submissions.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Master made no palpable and overriding error in assessing the medical evidence and had the discretion to extend the time for costs submissions before a formal order was entered.

The respondent law firm brought a motion to dismiss its former client's application to void a contingency fee agreement, arguing the application was commenced without her informed consent and constituted an abuse of process.

The former client, who suffered from a cognitive disorder following a motor vehicle accident, admitted during cross-examination that she did not understand portions of her affidavits.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that her inability to articulate detailed reasons did not vitiate her informed consent to commence the proceeding, and her evidence did not rise to the level of an abuse of process.

The plaintiff was injured while running to board a Toronto Transit Commission bus.

Following a jury trial, the jury found the defendants were not negligent and that the plaintiff's injuries were entirely caused by his own negligence in running to catch the bus and failing to anticipate the doors closing.

The court dismissed the action in accordance with the jury verdict and awarded the successful defendants partial indemnity costs fixed at $66,556.24, reducing the claimed hours to reflect a fair and reasonable amount.

The applicant, a person under disability, sought court approval for a $225,000 all-inclusive tort settlement arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court approved the settlement amount as being in the applicant's best interests, given the difficulty in proving causation for a subsequent brain aneurysm.

However, the court found the proposed legal fees of $52,585.35 to be excessive given the lack of complexity and time dockets, reducing the approved fees to $40,000 plus HST, thereby increasing the net recovery for the applicant.

Following an appeal where the appellants achieved divided success, the court tentatively awarded the appellants $5,000 in costs.

The respondents sought to reverse this tentative decision based on an offer to settle, which proposed dismissing the appeal without costs.

The court found the offer to settle was not relevant to the disposition of costs, as the appellants achieved a better result than the offer.

The court increased the costs awarded to the appellants to $7,500 due to the additional time and effort required to respond to the respondents' submissions.

Following a decision with divided success, the applicant sought costs based on three unaccepted offers to settle.

The respondent argued the claimed amount was excessive and noted duplication of effort due to a change of solicitors.

The court agreed with the respondent's submissions on quantum but applied Rule 49.10, awarding the applicant partial indemnity costs up to the date of its final offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing total costs at $13,501.01.

The plaintiff transportation brokerage sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce a non-solicitation clause against former employees who resigned to join a competitor.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, requiring a strong prima facie case because the injunction would restrict the defendants' ability to earn a living.

The court found the non-solicitation clause was likely too broad in duration and scope, and the departing employee was not a fiduciary.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed, but the court declined to award costs to the successful defendants due to their flagrant disregard for the spirit of the employment agreement and inappropriate handling of confidential information.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages arising from a slip and fall on a stairway.

The plaintiff fell while carrying a large basket down the stairs at a home owned by the co-defendant, where the moving defendant frequently stayed.

The court found genuine issues for trial regarding whether the moving defendant was an 'occupier' under the Occupiers' Liability Act and whether she breached a duty of care by instructing the plaintiff to carry the basket downstairs.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant and respondent insurers were engaged in a priority dispute regarding statutory accident benefits.

Following the death of the original arbitrator, the parties could not agree on a substitute.

The applicant brought an application under the Arbitration Act, 1991 to appoint a new arbitrator.

The court appointed the applicant's proposed choice, the Honourable Douglas Cunningham, finding that the dispute involved novel legal arguments and issues of deflection, making an arbitrator with extensive judicial experience preferable to one with specialized insurance adjusting experience.

The applicant developer sought reimbursement of $79,560 in HST from the respondent condominium corporation for four units the corporation was required to purchase.

The corporation brought a cross-application arguing the disclosure statement was misleading and sought damages for oppression due to the developer's conduct during refinancing.

The court found the disclosure statement's reference to 'plus all applicable taxes' was sufficient and ordered the corporation to pay the HST.

However, the court also found the developer's conduct during refinancing warranted sanction and ordered it to pay the corporation's additional legal costs of $20,597.90 as a set-off.

The accused, a youthful first offender, was convicted by a jury of robbery, attempted robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and threatening bodily harm against two sex workers.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence, while the defence sought two to two and a half years.

The court considered the mandatory minimums for the firearm offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the accused's strong rehabilitation prospects.

The court declined to give credit for pre-trial bail conditions, finding them not severe enough.

A total sentence of three years was imposed, less 14 days credit for pre-sentence custody, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's order allowing certain paragraphs in the defendants' Statement of Defence.

The plaintiffs argued the paragraphs improperly pleaded evidence rather than material facts, contrary to Rule 25.06.

The court upheld the Master's decision regarding paragraphs quoting emails and detailing facts for a fair comment defence.

However, the court struck a paragraph that quoted extensively from expert reports, finding it improperly pleaded evidence, and granted leave to amend.