Katie Sharp

Following a trial where the plaintiff was granted specific performance and an abatement of the purchase price, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court found that the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation and trial was egregious, including failing to respond to interlocutory steps, attempting to amend pleadings on the first day of trial, and calling witnesses to provide unpled and unpersuasive evidence.

As a result, the court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $210,000 inclusive of HST.

The plaintiff brought an action for specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for vacant commercial land, with an abatement of the purchase price due to the defendant's failure to install municipal services.

The defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim admitted the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance, but at trial, the defendant attempted to argue the agreement was null and void.

The court held the defendant to its pleadings, found the plaintiff entitled to specific performance, and granted an abatement of the purchase price based on the estimated cost for the plaintiff to independently service the lands.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial decision on spousal support obligations.

The applicant sought full recovery of costs totalling $5,442.63.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party based on trial positions and her reasonable settlement offer.

The respondent's refusal to negotiate and delay in providing financial disclosure were considered unreasonable.

The court awarded costs of $3,600 inclusive of fees and disbursements, payable at $300 per month commencing February 1, 2017, with acceleration provisions for late payment.

The applicant sought spousal support from the respondent in a common-law relationship that lasted approximately eight years.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing the applicant was not entitled to support or that any obligation had been satisfied through prior payments.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on non-compensatory grounds based on economic dependency, need, and the respondent's ability to pay, despite rejecting the applicant's compensatory claim.

The court determined the applicant's imputed income and the respondent's income capacity, then structured a declining support award within the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines ranges.