Lawrence Thacker

Following a trial where the plaintiffs recovered $87,917 on a $15 million claim for breach of a royalty agreement, the court determined costs and interest.

The defendants had made a $400,000 offer to settle just prior to trial.

The court found the plaintiffs were successful on only one issue and failed to accept a reasonable offer.

Applying Rule 49.13, the court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer, and the defendants partial indemnity costs thereafter.

This resulted in a net costs award of $177,905.99 payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

Prejudgment interest was awarded at the Courts of Justice Act rate.

The Receiver brought an unopposed motion for a Claims and Unitholdings Identification Order and for approval of its activities as described in its 12th Report.

The court found the proposed order practical and reasonable to assist the Receiver with the distribution process.

The motion was granted and the Receiver's activities were approved.

The Receiver brought a motion for an order approving an interim cash distribution of $78 million to the two institutional unitholders in Bridging SMA 2 LP.

The court found it appropriate to make an interim distribution but reduced the amount to $46 million to account for the potential impact of substantively consolidating the various Bridging Funds, an issue that had yet to be determined.

The Receiver brought a motion for an order approving a proposed sale and investment solicitation process (SISP) and authorizing the disclosure of Borrower Information to Qualified Bidders.

The court found that the proposed SISP satisfied the test for approval, as it was fair, transparent, and optimized the chances of securing the best price.

The court also authorized the disclosure of Borrower Information, finding that the best interests of investors could be jeopardized without such disclosure, and noting that all borrower concerns had been resolved and confidentiality obligations would apply to bidders.

The motion was granted.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a $17 million settlement, a distribution protocol, and class counsel fees in a certified class action regarding prepaid payment cards.

The action alleged the defendants breached gift card regulations under the Consumer Protection Act by seizing expired balances and charging unauthorized fees.

After a summary judgment was granted in part and appealed by both parties, a settlement was reached.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the distribution protocol and class counsel's fee request of 30% of the settlement amount.

The representative plaintiff in a class action sought partial indemnity costs of $982,097.02 following a successful summary judgment motion against the defendants for breaches of gift card regulations.

The defendants argued that the parties should bear their own costs due to divided success, or alternatively, that the costs should be significantly reduced.

The court rejected the argument for divided success, finding the plaintiff was the successful party.

However, the court agreed to deduct certain items not appropriate for a party-and-party assessment, awarding the plaintiff $905,244.02 in costs.

Following a summary judgment in a class action regarding prepaid payment cards, the court determined the appropriate prejudgment and postjudgment interest to be awarded to the plaintiff class.

The court deferred the determination of a distribution protocol pending the resolution of the defendants' appeal and the plaintiff's cross-appeal.

The court awarded $1,233,753 in prejudgment interest and ordered postjudgment interest at a rate of 3.0% per annum on the total award of $18,063,753.

The representative plaintiff brought a class action against the defendants for charging illegal fees and imposing expiry dates on prepaid payment cards, alleging violations of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and O. Reg. 17/05.

The court found that the defendants' Single Load Prepaid (SLP) cards were 'open loop gift cards' subject to the legislation, while their General Purpose Reloadable (GPR) cards were exempt as financial products.

The court granted summary judgment for the SLP cardholders, awarding $15,330,000 in aggregate damages for unlawful fees and seized balances, plus $1,500,000 in punitive damages for the defendants' intentional disregard of consumer protection laws.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants regarding prepaid payment cards.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and O. Reg. 17/05 by charging illegal fees and imposing expiry dates on the cards.

The defendants argued that the cards were exempt from the legislation.

The court found that the plaintiff satisfied the five-part test for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and certified the action as a class proceeding, subject to an adjustment to the class definition to account for the limitation period.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for the appointment of an investigator under the Business Corporations Act.

They argued the motion judge erred by failing to determine if a prima facie case of oppressive conduct was established and by requiring them to prove oppression on the merits.

The court found the motion judge applied the correct test and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general or public importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Following a complex family law trial involving challenges to a marriage contract, equalization, support arrears, and related financial claims, the successful party sought substantial costs.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and found that the unsuccessful party acted in bad faith, including failing to provide disclosure, refusing reasonable settlement offers, and engaging in conduct that prolonged the litigation.

The court held that such conduct justified full recovery costs.

After deducting certain conference-related and administrative charges, the court awarded substantial costs and prejudgment interest to the successful party and costs to added respondents from the date of their settlement offer.

The court determined the costs of a motion regarding the liability of the defendant 430 to various lien claimants in a construction lien reference.

The defendant 430 had settled with one lien claimant who had carriage of the motion, but the court found 430 remained liable for the costs incurred by other lien claimants who contributed to the motion.

The court fixed costs at $93,500 on a partial indemnity basis and apportioned the award among the contributing lien claimants based on their financial and counsel time contributions.

Following motions under the Partition Act concerning the sale of a jointly owned commercial property, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs significantly exceeding the guideline hourly rates published by the Costs Subcommittee of the Civil Rules Committee.

The court held that the guideline rates are not mandatory and may be exceeded where justified by factors such as inflation, the substantial monetary value of the dispute, the sophistication of the parties, and the retention of Toronto counsel.

Adjusted hourly rates above the guideline maximum were approved, but the overall costs claimed were reduced due to divided success on the motions.

The court ordered the respondent to pay partial indemnity costs of $20,000 plus disbursements.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

During a brief reconciliation attempt, they negotiated a marriage contract.

The wife intended to give the husband one-half the value of the matrimonial home, but a drafting error in the contract gave him the full value.

The husband and his lawyer noticed the error but failed to seek clarification.

At the time, the wife was suffering from undiagnosed bipolar disorder and hypomania, causing her to act recklessly.

The court found the contract void ab initio due to a lack of consensus ad idem on a fundamental term.

Alternatively, the court set aside the contract under the Family Law Act due to the wife's lack of capacity and unconscionability.

The court ordered an equalization payment, retroactive spousal support, and retroactive and ongoing child support.