Stewart

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff, the parties submitted written arguments regarding costs.

The defendant insurer sought costs against the plaintiff's counsel personally for allegedly unnecessary court appearances.

The court declined to award costs against counsel personally but significantly reduced the plaintiff's costs award to $1,750 due to the plaintiff's responsibility for delay and unnecessary expense.

Following the plaintiff's success in resisting an appeal from a Master's order, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale or, alternatively, on a partial indemnity scale.

The court found no reason to award costs on an elevated scale and fixed the plaintiff's costs on a partial indemnity basis at $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The defendants successfully resisted a portion of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding a fraudulent conveyance claim.

The successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle that reflected the procedural result but contained no financial proposal.

The plaintiff argued for costs in the cause or a reduced partial indemnity award.

The court awarded the defendant costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The defendant vendor brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff purchaser's action for the return of a $50,000 deposit.

The plaintiff had failed to close a commercial real estate transaction due to an inability to secure financing.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the contract clearly characterized the funds as a deposit, which at common law is forfeited upon the purchaser's breach.

The court also held that the plaintiff could not establish an entitlement to relief from forfeiture, as the deposit was proportional to the expected losses and its retention was not unconscionable.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for debts owed on guarantees and to set aside a property transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.

The defendants acknowledged the debt but opposed summary judgment on the fraudulent conveyance claim, arguing the transfer to the spouse was done for estate planning and financing purposes following a severe cancer diagnosis.

The court granted summary judgment for the debt but dismissed the motion regarding the fraudulent conveyance, finding that a trial was necessary to properly assess credibility and intent.

The plaintiffs brought actions against the police defendants for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and defamation arising from their arrests for criminal harassment and threatening death related to a series of threatening letters and phone calls directed at a school.

The police defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the actions.

The court granted the motions, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiffs, there was no evidence of malice, and the defamation claims were improperly pleaded and subject to qualified privilege.

Additionally, one plaintiff's action was barred by the limitation period.

Following a successful application for leave to commence a derivative action, the applicant sought costs of $14,305.97.

The respondent conceded entitlement but argued the amount was excessive, suggesting a range of $3,000 to $5,000.

Considering the straightforward nature of the application, the volume of materials, and the principle of proportionality, the court fixed costs at $8,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff, a graphite mining company, sought an interlocutory injunction against two former senior executives and their new employer, a competing graphite company.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached their fiduciary duties, confidentiality obligations, and non-competition/non-solicitation agreements by surreptitiously securing employment with the competitor and usurping a corporate opportunity regarding a processing facility.

The court granted the injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of breach, irreparable harm due to the highly competitive nature of the industry and potential loss of first-to-market advantage, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

Following a successful motion, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis or, alternatively, on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented defendant did not provide costs submissions.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $2,500.00, payable within 60 days.

The plaintiffs were entirely successful at trial in an action regarding the ownership of a valuable piece of real estate.

They sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $46,895.40, plus an additional $1,500 for attendances to settle the judgment.

The defendant argued that no costs should be awarded because the litigation was caused by the plaintiffs' failure to document their intentions clearly, or alternatively, that the costs sought were excessive.

The court rejected the defendant's argument for no costs and awarded the plaintiffs $37,500, finding this amount fair and reasonable given the scope of the engagement, the length of the trial, and the complexity of the issues.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to strike the claims of the plaintiff with leave to amend, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The defendants sought $4,278.75, while the plaintiff argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found the defendants were the successful parties and fixed costs at $3,000 inclusive, payable by the plaintiff within 60 days.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to set aside a default judgment on an unpaid mortgage debt due to ineffective service, both parties made written submissions regarding costs.

The self-represented defendants sought $2,600, while the plaintiff sought $1,000.

The court considered the circumstances and determined that a fair and reasonable disposition was to make no order as to costs.

The applicant, a director of a software corporation, sought leave under section 246 of the Business Corporations Act to commence a derivative action against the other two directors.

The applicant alleged the respondents breached their fiduciary duties by misappropriating corporate assets and diverting revenues to a competing company.

The responding director argued the claim was personal and should be pursued via an oppression remedy.

The court granted leave, finding the applicant acted in good faith, the proposed action was in the corporation's best interests, and the claim sought redress solely for wrongs done to the corporation rather than personal interests.

The plaintiff brought an action against the LCBO for damages in conversion after his credit card was used without authorization to purchase approximately $37,000 worth of alcohol for a nightclub.

The plaintiff failed to notify his credit card company of the unauthorized charges within the required 30-day period.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the LCBO did not commit the tort of conversion as it merely processed the orders and delivered the goods in the normal course of business without any wrongful act or intent to negate the plaintiff's title.

The court noted that had the action been framed in negligence, the plaintiff would have been found wholly responsible for his losses due to his failure to monitor his credit card statements.

The plaintiffs purchased a vehicle from a dealership that had obtained it via a dealer trade from the moving defendants.

After discovering a defect in the vehicle's air conditioning, the plaintiffs sued multiple parties.

Having settled with the manufacturer and the selling dealership, the plaintiffs continued their action against the trading dealership and its president.

The moving defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no contract, no evidence of negligence or bad faith, and no factual foundation for personal liability against the president.

Following a Rule 21 motion where the defendants successfully struck the plaintiff's pleading but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendants sought to defer costs, while the plaintiff sought costs based on a pre-motion offer to settle that proposed an amended pleading and a no-costs or costs-in-the-cause disposition.

The court noted the defendants' basic but divided success and the plaintiff's reasonable settlement offer, ultimately ordering that the costs of the motion be in the cause.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the individual defendant for repayment of a USD$1 million loan and over $400,000 in interest.

The funds had been advanced to a corporate entity controlled by the defendant, who failed to account for them.

Applying the Hryniak framework, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the principal amount, as the defendant provided no credible explanation for the missing funds.

However, the court found a trial was necessary to determine if the defendant was personally liable for the contractual interest rate.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant insurer to recover the shortfall on a mortgage following a fire at the insured property and a subsequent power of sale.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the mortgagee was only entitled to the actual cash value of repairs and had failed to file a timely proof of loss.

The court granted summary judgment, holding that the standard mortgage clause created a separate contract between the mortgagee and insurer, entitling the mortgagee to recover its shortfall regardless of the mortgagor's actions or the lack of repairs.

The defendant physicians and hospitals brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' medical negligence action for delay under Rule 24.01(1).

The action, commenced in 2001 following the death of the plaintiffs' family member, had proceeded at a glacial pace primarily due to the plaintiffs' difficulties in obtaining expert medical reports.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the delay was lengthy and the plaintiffs were wholly responsible, it was not intentional or contumelious.

Furthermore, the presumption of prejudice was rebutted as the necessary medical records were preserved and the case would largely rely on those records and expert opinions rather than witness memory.

The plaintiff, a senior staff accountant, sued her former employer for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, negligence, and intentional infliction of mental distress after her employment was terminated following a period of workplace conflict and medical leave.

The court found that the employer had acted professionally and in good faith throughout, dismissing the claims for bad faith, negligence, and intentional infliction of mental distress.

The court awarded the plaintiff 10 months' salary in lieu of notice.

Applying the principles from Sylvester, the court held that short-term disability benefits paid directly by the employer during the notice period should be deducted from the damages, but long-term disability benefits paid by a third-party insurer should not be deducted.