J. W. Sloan

The plaintiffs sought costs on a full, substantial, or partial indemnity basis following a motion to compel the defendants to comply with undertakings.

The defendants argued the motion was brought to delay discovery.

The court noted the defendants had the power to expedite discovery by complying with undertakings and court orders, which they failed to do.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $94,468.81.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' pleadings or, in the alternative, to compel answers to undertakings and for security for costs.

The action involved a $90 million real estate development dispute.

The court found that the individual defendant had repeatedly failed to answer hundreds of undertakings from his discovery and had breached multiple court orders, causing significant delay.

Although the plaintiffs withdrew their request to strike the pleadings, the court ordered the defendant to pay $100,000 into court as security for costs to enforce its processes against a wealthy party who abused the court system.

Following a trial where the respondent was totally successful, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded due to his impecuniosity and the respondent's access to benefits through her First Nations status.

The court rejected this argument, noting that the respondent is the sole support for their children because the applicant is unable to work.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the fixed amount of $6,000.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis of $186,101.56 or partial indemnity basis of $122,951.98 following her substantial success at a family law trial.

The court noted the respondent's unreasonable positions and failure to make or respond to offers to settle, which prolonged the litigation.

However, the court found the applicant's claimed 450 hours of lawyer time to be excessive and noted jurisdictional issues regarding costs for motions heard in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $73,410.05, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be enforced as a support order.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay $2,915.40 to the respondent roofing company for partial roof repairs.

The appellant, who was self-represented, argued that the trial judge was biased against him, erred in admitting certain photographs, and made incorrect factual findings regarding the cause of a roof leak.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, noting that the appellant had chosen to only partially repair a roof that was in a deplorable condition.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of cocaine discovered during a strip search following a traffic stop.

Police stopped a vehicle with mismatched licence plates and briefly questioned the passenger, who voluntarily provided identification that revealed he was bound by a probation order prohibiting association with persons with criminal records.

After learning the driver had a criminal record, police arrested the accused for breach of probation and discovered a hard object during a pat‑down search, leading to a strip search at the station that revealed cocaine.

The court held that the passenger was not detained during the initial roadside questioning and that brief requests for identification and relationship to the driver did not constitute detention or an unreasonable search under ss. 8 or 9 of the Charter.

The arrest and subsequent strip search were lawful and Charter‑compliant.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

Following earlier litigation involving the issuance of Notices of Prohibition by the Ministry, the successful party sought costs for multiple court attendances.

The court held that although costs were not specifically addressed at earlier hearings, they were necessary steps in the litigation and the successful party was entitled to recover costs.

The judge expressed concern that the ministry refused to hold its Notices of Prohibition in abeyance to allow an orderly hearing and indicated that substantial indemnity costs might otherwise have been appropriate.

However, due to deficiencies in the bill of costs and excessive hours claimed for research, the court reduced the hours and awarded partial indemnity costs.

Final costs were fixed at $45,076.33 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a motion in a civil action involving a minor plaintiff, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Although there had been some division of success on the underlying motion, the court found that the plaintiff had been substantially more successful overall.

Exercising its discretion on costs, the court fixed the amount payable rather than requiring further submissions.

The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff costs of the motion in a fixed sum inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25(11)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike several paragraphs of the statement of claim alleging prior misconduct and knowledge of risk relating to an alleged assault against a minor in a hotel room, or alternatively sought particulars under Rule 25.10.

The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled at the pleading stage to make allegations relevant to negligence and vicarious liability, particularly where the defendants would possess the relevant knowledge regarding prior conduct.

The court declined to strike most of the impugned pleadings but found that certain paragraphs were duplicative or improperly framed as submissions rather than allegations.

The court struck limited portions of the pleading while otherwise allowing the claim to proceed.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the issue of costs after the successful party had made multiple offers to settle for amounts less than the ultimate judgment.

The court found that the trial was unnecessary in light of the earlier offers and that the successful party was therefore entitled to substantial indemnity costs for preparation and attendance at trial.

Because the moving party failed to provide docket details with the original costs submissions, the court independently calculated allowable hours for trial and preparation.

The court fixed legal fees, law clerk time, and disbursements and applied HST to the approved legal fees.

The parties lived in an unmarried domestic arrangement and jointly operated several motel properties over many years.

Following their separation, the plaintiff claimed an interest in the properties based on unjust enrichment and a joint family venture.

The court found that the parties operated as a partnership, contributing equal effort and capital.

The plaintiff was awarded a 50% interest in the Fairview Motel, a 50% share of the proceeds from the sale of the Queensway Motel, a 25% interest in the Hillcrest property, and reimbursement for joint funds unilaterally withdrawn by the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim for spousal support was dismissed.

Following a trial and related injunction proceedings, the successful party sought recovery of its legal costs.

The court reviewed the cost submissions of both parties and determined that the successful party was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found no reason to depart from the amounts claimed for trial preparation, attendance, and injunction-related work.

Costs were fixed in a specified amount payable by the opposing party.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship without access for one child, S.M., and a custody order in favour of the mother for the other child, G.M. The father, who was self-represented, opposed the motion and sought custody or access.

The court found that the father had a history of domestic violence, failed to complete a partner assault response program, and presented numerous unrealistic plans of care.

Finding no genuine issue for trial regarding S.M., the court ordered Crown wardship without access.

For G.M., the court ordered a 12-month supervision order with the child remaining in the mother's care and the father having access at the Society's discretion.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the corporate defendant from dissipating the proceeds of the sale of three properties, fearing an inability to enforce a future judgment.

The plaintiff alleged that $400,000 from a promissory note was missing from the corporate defendant's accounts.

Applying the tests for interlocutory and Mareva injunctions, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if the assets were dissipated, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The court granted the injunction, subject to conditions allowing the corporate defendant to pay reasonable expenses related to the property sales.