Kevin Caron

Costs endorsement following a successful motion by the plaintiff law firm regarding documentary production obligations.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $12,694, while the defendant argued $5,000 was reasonable given the novelty of the privilege issues.

The court found the defendant's pre-litigation conduct reprehensible, including depositing client funds into a personal account, soliciting cash payments, and making disparaging remarks about clients.

The defendant's blanket refusal to produce documents under the guise of solicitor-client privilege, despite the plaintiff's practical attempts to resolve the matter, further warranted elevated costs.

Costs were awarded on a substantial indemnity basis in the full amount of $12,694.

The defendants brought motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The plaintiff, a former Complaints and Appeals Officer for a national sports organization, sued the defendants over emails they sent criticizing his handling of complaints and his suitability for the role.

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to a matter of public interest regarding athlete safety.

While the defamation claim had substantial merit, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendants lacked valid defences, such as justification and qualified privilege.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of serious harm caused by the expressions that would outweigh the public interest in protecting them.

The motions were granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant, Cash Cloud Inc., sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent, BitAccess Inc., from terminating a Master Purchase Agreement, deactivating cloud-based software used for cryptocurrency kiosks, and deleting customer data.

The court found it had jurisdiction to grant interim relief despite a mandatory arbitration clause.

The court granted a 60-day order preserving the customer data to allow the applicant to download it.

However, the court dismissed the injunction to restrain the software deactivation because the applicant failed to provide the mandatory undertaking as to damages required by Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sued for damages arising from the defendants' refusal to close a real estate transaction for commercial property intended for condominium development.

Liability for breach of contract was previously determined by summary judgment.

At trial to quantify damages, the plaintiff sought disgorgement of profits or, alternatively, expectation damages including reimbursement of development expenses.

The court declined to award gain-based restitution but awarded expectation damages to make the plaintiff whole, comprising the $323,000 difference between the purchase price and the land's value on the closing date, plus 90% of the plaintiff's out-of-pocket development expenses ($1,062,901).

The defendants' counterclaim was allowed in part for admitted debts and rent up to the date of breach.

The moving defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff in an action arising from a failed joint venture to develop LeBreton Flats.

The court found there was good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets to satisfy a costs award, as its liabilities exceeded its assets.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient exigible assets, relying instead on future revenue streams which the court found inadequate.

The court concluded it was just to order security for costs, noting the moving defendants were minor players facing significant expenses and the plaintiff's controlling shareholder would otherwise be shielded from costs liability.

The plaintiff was ordered to post security in instalments.

The applicant mortgagee sought a declaration of entitlement to a yield maintenance payment (prepayment of future interest) following the sale of two mortgaged properties by a court-appointed receiver.

The respondent mortgagors and a second mortgagee opposed the claim, arguing the mortgages were opened by the receiver's actions, triggering the equity of redemption, and that the payment offended the anti-deprivation rule and the Interest Act.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the mortgages remained closed, the receiver's actions did not constitute a realization on the security, and the mortgagee was entitled at common law to the future interest to the end of the term.

The court declared the applicant entitled to $1,473,141.82.

The parties were unable to resolve costs following a motion and cross-motion where the court stayed assessment orders pending the completion of a related negligence action.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $41,045.00.

The court determined that because the litigation is ongoing and the assessment is intertwined with the negligence action, the fairest result is for costs to be in the cause.

Costs for the motion and cross-motion were reserved for the trial judge.