24 total
Security for costs ordered against corporate plaintiff lacking sufficient exigible assets to satisfy potential costs award.
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.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.
The appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Corthorn J. dated November 4, 2019.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000 inclusive.
Costs of motion and cross-motion reserved to the trial judge as costs in the cause.
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.
The court stayed the assessment of a law firm's accounts pending the resolution of the client's related negligence action.
The Applicant law firm sought assessment of outstanding accounts.
The Respondent client brought a cross-motion to stay the assessment proceedings pending the outcome of a negligence action against the law firm.
The court granted the stay, finding that the negligence action raised serious allegations, involved significantly higher damages, and its outcome would likely determine the assessment, thus avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting findings.