R. Swaine

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant to re-attend an examination for discovery to answer questions regarding a tape recording of a conversation and its translation.

The defendant refused to answer, claiming privilege and arguing the translation was inadmissible.

The Master granted the motion, finding insufficient evidence of privilege to bar all questions and noting that admissibility is a matter for the trial judge.

The defendant was ordered to re-attend and answer the refused questions, with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim at trial, the successful defendants sought costs of $75,000.

The court found that the plaintiff had unreasonably pursued a meritless case, provided tailored evidence, and rejected an offer to settle that would have resulted in a dismissal without costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and Rule 49, the court awarded the defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff sought costs thrown away after the defendant failed to attend a scheduled examination for discovery.

The defendant argued that preparation time was not wasted as it could be used for the rescheduled examination, and that counsel should not have attended because notice of non-attendance was given.

The court discounted the preparation time slightly but allowed the attendance costs, noting it was appropriate to obtain a certificate of non-attendance.

The court awarded the plaintiff $1,446.40 in costs thrown away.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion to enforce a second mortgage arising from a Sharia-compliant financing structure arranged through an intermediary.

The central issue was whether the borrower's monthly payments were profit-only payments with the principal due at maturity, or principal repayments on an interest-free loan.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court found the documentary record permitted a fair and just determination and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Judgment was granted for the outstanding principal, prejudgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act, enforcement fees, possession of the property, and costs to be addressed separately.