K. Sher

Following a successful summary judgment motion in a professional negligence action against a lawyer, the plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the discretionary framework for awarding costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the principles of fairness, indemnity, and access to justice.

The court rejected arguments for both full and substantial indemnity costs, finding no vexatious litigation conduct or reprehensible behaviour by the defendant despite breaches of professional obligations in the underlying transaction.

Given the straightforward nature of the proceeding and the plaintiff’s partial success, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the defendant, a lawyer, for outstanding loans.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant acted as her lawyer, breached his duty of care by acting in a conflict of interest, borrowed money from her, and failed to disclose material facts about the borrowers' insolvency.

The court found a solicitor-client relationship existed and that the defendant breached his duty of care.

The court held that expert evidence was not required to establish negligence in these circumstances.

Summary judgment was granted for the principal amounts of the loans, but the claim against LawPRO was dismissed as it was not a party to the proceedings.