Fabrice Gouriou

Following a 31-day trial where the plaintiff was awarded $11 million in damages, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the plaintiff.

The parties agreed that partial indemnity was the appropriate scale.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed the plaintiff's partial indemnity fees at $675,000 plus HST and disbursements at $238,000 inclusive of HST.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought an action against the defendant unit owners (the 'Majority') for unpaid condominium fees, special assessments, and a declaration of the validity of registered liens and notices of sale.

The defendants denied owing fees, claiming credits for water consumption and a right of setoff for promissory notes allegedly owed by the corporation.

The court rejected the defendants' claims for setoff and water credits, finding that the obligation to pay common expenses under section 84 of the Condominium Act is absolute and cannot be avoided due to claims against the corporation or other unit owners.

The court granted judgment for the plaintiff for the unpaid principal and compound interest, upheld the validity of the liens, but found some notices of sale invalid due to overstated arrears.

An investor that had acquired the rights of a bankrupt Indigenous‑owned technology company sued a software corporation for breach of contract arising from a failed strategic partnership.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant committed to invest $1.5 million and provide technological support but later withdrew, causing the company’s collapse.

The court found a binding agreement was formed through oral approval and a confirming letter, and that the defendant’s internal corporate approval issues did not negate the contract.

Alleged misrepresentations regarding finances, market size, and potential investors were rejected.

Applying a modified valuation based on projected business plans and discounting for risk, the court awarded damages for the lost business opportunity.

During a condominium dispute trial, the court issued a case conference endorsement seeking clarification on numerous factual and legal issues arising from the parties’ written submissions and evidentiary record.

The questions addressed matters including authority for condominium declaration amendments, evidence supporting alleged admissions regarding water consumption calculations, lien discharge obligations under the Condominium Act, and accounting calculations concerning arrears and credits among unit owners.

The court also requested clarification regarding voting eligibility, mortgage evidence, water meter installation evidence, and whether special assessments could be levied against select units.

The defendants’ counterclaim was scheduled to proceed to trial at a later date.

The court determined the appropriate costs following motions in which the responding party was entirely successful.

The court applied the discretionary framework for costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that fixing costs is not a purely mechanical calculation based on hours and rates.

The objective is to arrive at an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay in the circumstances of the proceeding.

After considering the Rule 57.01(1) factors, the court fixed an all-inclusive costs award payable by the moving party defendants.