Natalie Mullins

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the plaintiffs to add new defendants and amend their Statement of Claim.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion was unnecessarily complicated by the responding parties.

The court found the plaintiffs were entitled to costs but not on a substantial indemnity basis, as there was no reprehensible conduct by the opposing parties.

The court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable jointly and severally by the responding parties within 30 days, rejecting the suggestion to reserve costs to the trial judge.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to add a new corporate defendant and several individual defendants, and to amend their Statement of Claim to increase damages to $8,000,000 and assert claims of fraud.

The plaintiffs alleged that the original defendant transferred its business and assets to the new corporate defendant to defeat the plaintiffs' claims regarding environmental contamination advice.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs moved with sufficient dispatch upon discovering the new corporation and that the allegations were more conveniently dealt with in the present action.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal upholding a Director's order under s. 18 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The order required the appellants, as owners or former owners/occupiers of a contaminated source property, to delineate contamination that had migrated to off-site properties.

The appellants argued s. 18 was limited to future events and on-site remediation, contrasting it with the fault-based s. 17.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's broad interpretation of s. 18—that it permits off-site orders and applies to existing, ongoing, and future adverse effects—was reasonable and consistent with the modern principles of statutory interpretation.

Following a motion decision, the court addressed correspondence from counsel regarding the description of a costs request and the resulting costs award.

The moving defendants argued that the court had misstated their requested costs by referencing an amount calculated on an actual-rate basis rather than the lower partial indemnity amount.

The court reviewed the cost outlines and confirmed that the figure referenced in the earlier endorsement was used only as a convenient measure for reducing the successful party’s requested costs due to deficiencies in the statement of claim.

Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court declined to vary the previously fixed costs award.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that an exchange of correspondence did not constitute a binding agreement of purchase and sale for the Guelph Storm.

They also appealed the application judge's decision to award substantial indemnity costs to the respondent on a merged contempt and enforcement application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the contract formation analysis, and upholding the costs award due to the appellants' prolonged delay and attempts to avoid their obligations.

The appellants appealed an order finding that a debt to Kroll had been established and that the bankruptcy petitions were not filed for an improper purpose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there was evidence to support the trial judge's findings and no basis to interfere.