Karen Leanne Dawson

A costs decision following dismissal of an application in a multi‑jurisdictional commercial dispute.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $28,000 while the unsuccessful party requested that costs be fixed at approximately half that amount and payable in the cause.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered the complexity of jurisdictional issues, the experience and efficiency of counsel, and the reasonableness of the claimed hours and rates.

The court held that the appropriate award should reflect overall reasonableness rather than a line‑by‑line bill assessment and fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court also set aside a registrar’s administrative order dismissing the action as abandoned, finding no delay in prosecution.

Following a motion and cross-motion that resulted in mixed success for both parties, the court invited written costs submissions.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $11,000, while the responding party sought approximately $8,800 or alternatively no order as to costs.

The court observed that the motion prompted the parties to moderate their positions and engage in compromise.

Taking into account the mixed success and proportionality considerations, the court exercised its discretion to fix a lump sum costs award payable to the moving party.

The plaintiff brought a productions motion in a contractual dispute concerning a 2007 central financing agreement.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant breached the agreement due to pressure from GM dealers and sought production of documents relating to a proposed Consillium financing structure, GM dealer meeting records, internal credit policies, and redacted communications.

The court found several categories of documents relevant to the pleaded theory and ordered production of documents concerning the creation of Consillium and internal policy materials, including menus of credit policy titles.

The defendant was also required to request relevant records from a dealers’ association and provide sufficient descriptions for documents claimed as privileged.

The motion and cross‑motion resulted in mixed success, with further costs submissions invited.

The plaintiff leasing company sued a co-lessee for a deficiency balance after a leased vehicle was not returned and was later stolen following two lease extensions.

The defendant argued he had only agreed to support the original lease financially and had not consented to the later extensions, which bore signatures found not to be his.

The court held that the defendant functioned as an accommodation surety and that the lease extensions materially varied the principal contract without his consent.

Under the law governing sureties and the lease’s entire agreement clause, such variations discharged the surety from liability.

The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed and the defendant succeeded on his counterclaim for repayment of funds withdrawn from his account after the original lease term.