Amelia Lau

Following trial in a dispute over money owed from the purchase of a restaurant, the successful plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on delay and aggressive cross-examination.

The court held that costs generally follow the event on a partial indemnity basis and that no special circumstances justified elevated costs.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed the matter globally, considered complexity, divided success, proportionality, and reasonable hourly rates, and fixed costs against one defendant only.

Partial indemnity costs of $22,687.16, inclusive of HST and disbursements, were awarded, together with pre-judgment interest from October 3, 2014.

The plaintiff sold a restaurant business to the defendant father, who negotiated the purchase and signed the agreement.

The father later stopped making payments, leaving a balance of $30,000.

The plaintiff sued the father, his son, and the son's corporation for the balance.

The court found that the father acted on his own behalf and did not have ostensible authority to bind his son or the corporation, dismissing the claims against them.

The father was ordered to pay the outstanding balance, subject to a $4,500 set-off for a leased dishwasher that the plaintiff had misrepresented as an owned asset.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff alleged the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress based on two incidents: the defendant’s alleged failure to notify him of their father’s deteriorating medical condition before death, and the defendant’s exclusion of him from participation in the planning and conduct of their father’s funeral.

The court held that the alleged omission to communicate the father’s condition constituted inaction and could not ground the intentional tort alleged.

The court further held that disputes about participation in funeral arrangements and intra‑familial grievances of this nature are not appropriate for judicial adjudication and do not give rise to a cause of action for intentional infliction of mental distress.

The statement of claim was therefore dismissed.

The applicant sought repayment of funds allegedly held in a foreign exchange trading account maintained with the respondent trading platform.

The respondent claimed the account had a negative balance due to improper trading practices and alleged retroactive losses arising from trades purportedly closed by a liquidity provider more than a month after the original transactions.

After reviewing account records, journal logs, and expert evidence, the court found the disputed trades were not the result of improper trading and that the alleged later closings did not occur.

The court concluded the respondent manipulated records to fabricate losses and retroactively adjust the account balance.

The applicant was awarded damages equal to the account balance shown in the earlier statement, an unpaid contractual bonus, and punitive damages.