Fraud allegations

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim at trial, the successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff conceded that substantial indemnity costs were warranted due to unsuccessful fraud allegations but disputed the quantum and whether the litigation administrator should be personally liable.

The court fixed costs at $45,000 for the Jolicouers and $55,000 for Debra.

The court ordered the litigation administrator to be personally liable for 67% of the costs, representing the portion incurred after the deceased's death when she continued the litigation for her own benefit, with the estate liable for the remaining 33%.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a motion brought by the defendants to set aside a charging order in favour of their former counsel.

The former counsel sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on unaccepted offers to settle and the defendants' unsupported allegations of fraud against him.

The court refused to defer the costs determination to a future assessment hearing.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the former counsel, finding that the defendants' unproven and unsupported allegations of fraud warranted sanction, and fixed the costs at $5,400.

The applicant second mortgagee sought a determination of the legitimacy and priority of certain charges and an increased interest rate claimed by the respondent first mortgagee under a renewed first mortgage.

The court held that the disputed charges and the increased interest rate were enforceable and held priority over the second mortgage, as the second mortgagee was deemed to have notice of the standard charge terms permitting such increases.

However, the court adjourned the final allocation of funds to a trial of an issue to address the applicant's late allegations of fraud.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the defendants sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle and the plaintiff's allegations of fraud.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, finding the offer to settle was close to an offer to capitulate and the plaintiff's position was not entirely spurious.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $46,567.10.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's urgent application, which amounted to an unjustified attempt to obtain a Mareva injunction, the respondents sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the applicant's unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, failure to attend cross-examination, and refusal to pay undisputed mortgage arrears warranted an elevated costs award.

Balancing the indemnity principle with access to justice, the court awarded costs to the respondents on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $20,000.

Following the unopposed dismissal of an action claiming $35 million for fraud and conspiracy, the successful defendants and third parties sought their costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations of fraud were advanced recklessly, entitling the primary defendants to costs on an elevated scale.

The court awarded the primary defendants $426,055.56 (splitting the difference between partial and substantial indemnity) and awarded the third parties their full claimed partial indemnity costs of $102,980.59.

The defendant, having been entirely successful at trial, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and dishonesty.

The court found that the plaintiff made serious allegations of deliberate wrongdoing without any effort to prove them, using the litigation to try to escape a commercial agreement.

The court held this conduct was reprehensible and warranted punitive costs.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of $456,560.11 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The parties sought costs following a series of motions concerning document production and privilege.

The plaintiffs had been unsuccessful on all their motions, including an attempt to set aside prior orders based on unproven allegations of fraud against the Crown.

The Crown and another defendant, Sandra Antoniani, were successful in their respective motions.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Antoniani in the amount of $25,635.80.

The court awarded the Crown $25,000 in partial indemnity costs for its clawback motion and $45,000 in substantial indemnity costs for responding to the plaintiffs' motions, noting the plaintiffs' unproven allegations of fraud and unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his defamation claim against the County of Simcoe and its employee, as well as the substantial indemnity costs award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no evidence of malice to defeat the respondents' qualified privilege in gathering information for an Ontario Works file.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting that the appellant's unproven allegations of fraud justified costs on a substantial indemnity basis.