Laura White

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s action at a contested status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs for preparation and attendance related to the dismissal motion.

The court held that some claimed time, including work connected to a prior interlocutory motion and certain post‑hearing submissions, should not be included.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable rather than a precise calculation of docketed hours, the court fixed a global costs award.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $10,500 in fees plus HST and approved disbursements.

At a contested status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s negligence action for delay.

The court applied the two‑part conjunctive test confirmed by the Court of Appeal requiring the plaintiff to show a reasonable explanation for the delay and absence of non‑compensable prejudice to the defendant.

Although the defendants conceded they would not suffer prejudice if the action proceeded, the plaintiff failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for extensive procedural delays, including failure to properly plead the claim, repeated non‑compliance with court orders, and lengthy unexplained gaps in advancing the litigation.

The court emphasized that plaintiffs bear primary responsibility for moving actions forward and that persistent disregard of procedural timelines undermines the administration of justice.

As the plaintiff did not meet the required test, the action was dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent, brought by the respondent mortgagee in possession.

The tenant argued the Board erred in its factual findings regarding notice and rent payment, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the premises were exempt under s. 5(j) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's factual findings and noting that the jurisdictional argument was not raised before the Board.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.