Justin Paul Baichoo

Following a successful motion for security for costs, the moving party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $51,000.

The responding party argued that no costs should be awarded or that costs should be reserved pending judicial review of the motion decision.

The court assessed the relevant Rule 57.01 factors including partial success on the motion, the complexity of the issues, the parties’ conduct, and the reasonableness of the time claimed in the costs outline.

While the moving party was the successful party, some claimed time was excessive and the security order represented only about 65% of what had been sought.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $25,000 inclusive of tax.

The appellant law firm appealed an order dismissing its motion to set aside a requisition obtained by the respondent client under s. 3 of the Solicitors Act for the assessment of legal accounts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the accounts were interim and the requisition was properly made within one month of the delivery of the final account.

The court also upheld the motions judge's exercise of inherent jurisdiction to permit the assessment and his refusal to order security for costs.

The moving party, Cobra Power Inc., sought costs following its successful motion to refer the action to a Master and the responding party's abandonment of a stay motion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs for the reference motion and full indemnity costs for the stay motion, finding that the responding party engaged in unreasonable delay tactics and made groundless, shrill allegations of professional misconduct against opposing counsel.

Following the dismissal of Unimac's motion seeking the recusal of the Master on grounds of racial bias, the responding parties sought costs.

Unimac argued costs should be deferred to the Divisional Court pending judicial review.

The Master determined it was appropriate to fix costs immediately.

Finding that Unimac's motion was an abuse of process, involved scurrilous and unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of the judicial officer, caused unnecessary delay, and that Unimac failed to accept a reasonable offer to settle, the Master awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

Unimac was ordered to pay $52,810.37 to the Lead Respondents and $6,728.30 to St. Clare's.

The defendant, Metrolinx, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Unimac, in a construction lien action.

Metrolinx argued that Unimac had commenced multiple proceedings for the same relief and had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The Master granted leave under the Construction Lien Act to bring the motion, finding that Metrolinx met its initial onus on both grounds.

Unimac failed to prove it had sufficient assets or that the multiplicity of proceedings was justified.

The Master ordered Unimac to post $264,712.73 as security for costs, discounting the requested amount to account for Metrolinx's counterclaim.

The moving party sought an order referring the action to a master for trial together with, or immediately after, related construction lien proceedings arising from the same rail maintenance facility project.

The court held that the actions shared central questions of fact and law, including responsibility for project delay and resulting losses, and involved overlapping parties, witnesses, documents, and damages.

The court also found that a prolonged review of project documentation and accounting issues made reference under Rule 54 appropriate.

The objection based on s. 58(1) of the Construction Lien Act failed because, in the circumstances, no pleadings remained open.

The motion was granted and costs were left to the master.

Following an unsuccessful motion by certain defendants to set aside a noting in default, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis totaling $6,796.95 inclusive of fees and HST.

The court declined to award costs at that level and instead fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Costs of $4,570.00 plus HST were ordered payable by specific defendants to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed an order declaring that the respondent had priority over any other interest claimed in certain retirement community units, except for valid construction lien claims.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by determining the priority motion separately from the lien reference and by not giving effect to its security and equity interests.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the bifurcation of issues flowed from a previous unappealed court order and that the motion judge's order specifically preserved the construction lien issues.

The appellant, an assignee of a second mortgage, appealed an order on the sole basis that the motion judge erred by refusing to grant an adjournment on the hearing date.

The appellant claimed it had no notice of the hearing and had only retained counsel the day before.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the decision to grant or refuse an adjournment is discretionary and entitled to deference, and found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision.

The defendant moved for security for costs against a corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d), alleging there was good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

Although the court found evidence suggesting financial instability and concluded the moving party met the initial threshold and obtained leave under the Construction Lien Act, the motion ultimately failed.

The court held that the plaintiff had not met the high evidentiary burden to prove impecuniosity that would defeat the motion.

However, the defendant’s unexplained delay in bringing the motion, breach of case management directions, and the existence of substantial counterclaims arising from the same facts rendered an award of security for costs unjust.

The motion was therefore dismissed.

The moving party sought an order transferring an action from Newmarket to Toronto and assigning it to be heard with related proceedings arising from a large construction project.

The responding party challenged the jurisdiction of a master to order a change of venue and opposed the transfer.

The court held that Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure confers jurisdiction on a master to order a venue transfer, distinguishing authority concerning consolidation and stays under s. 107 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Applying the Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) factors, the court found that the events, subject matter, and related litigation were centred in Toronto and that transferring the matter would promote efficiency and avoid inconsistent findings.

The motion for adjournment was denied and the venue transfer ordered, while requests to have the action tried with other proceedings or referred to the master for trial were adjourned to be determined by a judge.

Following the plaintiff’s success on a summary judgment motion, the court determined the appropriate quantum and scale of costs.

The plaintiff sought approximately $27,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendant advanced meritless defences.

The defendant argued the motion was straightforward and proposed costs of about $5,000.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable from the perspective of the unsuccessful party, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 plus HST and disbursements.

Following a successful motion by the defendant foundation to vacate multiple construction liens upon payment into court of the general contractor’s lien amount, the court addressed costs.

The moving party had previously served an offer to settle that closely mirrored the relief ultimately granted.

The unsuccessful plaintiff opposed the motion and declined the offer.

Applying the principles governing costs and considering the settlement offer and the reasonable expectations of litigation expense for such a motion, the court fixed costs in favour of the moving party at the higher end of the anticipated range.

Appeal from a Master’s order staying an action commenced in Newmarket relating to a construction project that was also the subject of multiple lien proceedings in Toronto.

The Master had concluded that the proceedings involved overlapping facts and legal issues and ordered a stay of the entire Newmarket action pending resolution of the Toronto lien action.

The Superior Court held that the Master lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay of the separate action because such relief must be granted by a judge under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court further found that the Master erred by granting relief beyond what was requested in the notice of motion, contrary to principles of procedural fairness.

The appeal was allowed and the stay order set aside, but the court ordered that non‑trust claims from the Newmarket action be incorporated into the Toronto lien proceedings while permitting the trust claims to proceed separately.

A project owner sought an order vacating multiple construction liens by paying security into court equal to the general contractor’s lien claim plus security for costs.

The contractor argued the owner should be required to post security covering both the contractor’s lien and additional subcontractor lien claims.

The court applied s. 17 of the Construction Lien Act, holding that subcontractors claiming through a contractor are limited to the amount owed by the owner to that contractor, absent holdback breaches.

Because the subcontractor claims arose through the contractor and were largely subsumed within the contractor’s lien claim, the owner was not required to post additional security for them.

The court ordered the liens vacated upon payment of the contractor’s lien amount plus security for costs.

A subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment against a general contractor for unpaid amounts arising from asphalt paving work performed pursuant to a purchase order for a retirement home construction project.

The contractor resisted payment, alleging deficiencies in the work, unauthorized extras, and non-payment by the project owner.

The court found the subcontractor’s documentary evidence regarding the extras and completion of the work to be uncontradicted and drew an adverse inference from the contractor’s failure to provide affidavit evidence from the on-site representative with direct knowledge.

The court held that the subcontract did not make payment conditional upon the contractor receiving payment from the owner.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial under the summary judgment test, the court granted judgment for the subcontractor for the claimed amount plus pre-judgment interest and costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt after the defendant failed to comply with a litigation timetable order.

The defendant eventually provided the required productions, rendering the contempt motion moot, but the parties disputed costs.

The court found that the defendants' counsel had disregarded the timetable order and that the plaintiff's counsel had made every effort to follow up before bringing the motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff $2,500 in costs.

Following a contempt motion between the plaintiff and defendants, the court addressed costs.

Although the defendants successfully defended the contempt motion, the court found it more likely than not that one defendant removed certain logbooks in contravention of court orders, which militated against awarding costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff also failed on the motion and therefore was not entitled to costs.

However, a non-party that participated in the proceedings was awarded substantial indemnity costs due to its limited but necessary involvement.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the non-party $25,000 plus HST and disbursements.