3 total
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.
The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs following a motion with divided success and excessive fee claims.
This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the defendants successfully obtained a reduction in the quantum of a lien claim, though the lien itself was not discharged.
Both the plaintiff and the defendants sought costs, claiming success.
The court found that there was divided success on the underlying motion and noted the parties' failure to make bona fide efforts to settle costs.
Considering the proportionality, complexity, and importance of the issues, as well as the excessive hours and rates claimed by both parties, the court determined that a fit and just costs order was for each side to bear its own costs.
The court reduced the security posted to vacate a construction lien but refused to discharge it entirely due to triable issues regarding the contract's nature.
This is a construction lien action where the Defendants/Moving Parties sought an order discharging the lien or, in the alternative, reducing the security posted by Greatwise Developments Ltd. The Plaintiff agreed to a reduction of $250,000 due to an overlooked payment.
The court found significant factual disputes regarding whether the contract was fixed-price or cost-plus, and whether the Plaintiff abandoned the project, deeming these triable issues.
However, based on admitted errors and non-lienable items identified by the Defendants, the court ordered a further reduction of the security posted.
The motion to discharge the lien was dismissed, but the security was reduced from an initial $8,058,101.79 to $6,551,681.65.
