Kris Hutton

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful motion to determine priority between creditors after a judicial sale.

The plaintiff had made an offer to settle for $25,000, which was beaten at the hearing.

The court found the responding party's conduct to be particularly egregious, noting a combination of deceit, frivolous arguments, and repetitive proceedings designed to make collecting a simple debt as expensive as possible.

Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiff full indemnity costs fixed at $150,000.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $15,172.25 following its success on a motion brought by the moving party to stay a finding of contempt.

The moving party argued costs should be reduced because the plaintiff was unsuccessful on its oral motion for a finding of contempt against an individual personally.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs due to the failed oral motion, but awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $11,000.

The plaintiff sought costs of approximately $3,000 for a motion heard on January 13, 2017, where the court granted possession of the subject property and enjoined a sale under power of sale.

The mortgagee, 1746878 Ontario Inc., argued it should not be liable for costs as it took no part in that motion.

The court agreed, noting that 1746878 Ontario Inc. did not appear until a later date, and declined to order costs against it for the January 13 motion.

Following a successful motion to cite the responding corporation for contempt of court, the plaintiff sought full indemnity costs.

The court awarded costs of $9,171.05 on a full indemnity scale against the corporation due to its reprehensible actions in deliberately contravening court orders.

The court declined to order costs against an individual who was not involved in the motion.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to determine questions of law regarding applicable limitation periods and proper parties in an action for damages arising from a municipal drain.

The court held that the limitation period in s. 111 of the Drainage Act applies only to proceedings before a referee, not the Superior Court, meaning s. 45 of the former Limitations Act applied to the plaintiffs' claims.

The court also found that the one-year limitation period under s. 46 of the Professional Engineers Act applied to the claims against the engineering defendants.

Finally, the court determined that under s. 79 of the Drainage Act, the municipality is strictly liable for damages caused by the condition of drainage works, precluding claims against the other defendants.