Ralph Cuervo-Lorens

Following dismissal of the plaintiff's environmental contamination action after trial, two successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs or, alternatively, a large mixed-scale costs award.

The court held that elevated costs were not justified because the action, while unsuccessful, was not meritless and the plaintiff's litigation conduct fell within the ordinary thrust and parry of adversarial litigation rather than reprehensible or sanction-worthy conduct.

Applying the governing principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and the Rule 57.01 factors, the court found the claimed partial indemnity costs reasonable given the complexity, duration, and importance of the case.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $573,334.89 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of a waste stockpile from a property and brought motions for a stay of the Order pending the disposition of the appeal.

The parties reached an agreement on granting partial stays.

The Tribunal found no statutory bars to granting the stays under the Environmental Protection Act and concluded that the serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience tests were satisfied.

The Tribunal granted the partial stays on consent, extending the compliance dates for various work items.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claims for economic torts, breach of fiduciary duties, and breach of a settlement agreement containing non-competition terms, as well as the judgment granting a counterclaim for an unpaid bonus.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' arguments were primarily disagreements with the trial judge's factual and credibility findings.

The court held that the trial judge made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact, and that the findings were supported by the evidentiary record.

The moving party defendants in a multi-defendant civil action brought a motion for dismissal of the action against them without costs.

The plaintiff municipality had settled the action with the moving parties.

Having regard to the consents filed, the unopposed defendants, and the defendants who had not responded despite being duly served, the court granted the motion and issued an order in accordance with the draft order filed.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion to strike the statements of defence filed by the self-represented defendants in two related fraud actions.

The court reviewed the motion materials and the responding party's correspondence, then set a schedule for responding materials, reply, and oral submissions rather than deciding the motion on the written record alone.

The responding parties were given until April 7, 2026 to file responding materials, with reply due April 17, 2026 and oral submissions scheduled for April 24, 2026.

Following a prior costs endorsement, it came to the court's attention that the moving party had renewed an original motion for additional disclosure that had not been brought to the court's attention due to filing irregularities.

The court reviewed its prior costs order and limited the cost award to the sum associated with fake case references, staying the balance of the costs order pending a scheduled in-person hearing on the renewed motion.

Following the adjournment of the self-represented respondent's motion on a prior hearing date due to improper conduct — specifically the submission of fabricated legal authorities and misrepresentations to the court — the court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis for costs thrown away.

The self-represented respondent disputed the quantum, arguing costs should not exceed approximately $1,100.

The court found the respondent's submissions unconvincing and highlighted his failure to show remorse, his continued misrepresentations, and his abandonment of the renewed motion.

Costs were fixed at $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, representing both the costs of responding to the flawed factum and the totality of the responding party's efforts.

The plaintiff was successful in opposing a motion brought by the defendants, which the court previously dismissed as unnecessary and obstructive to the discovery process.

The plaintiff sought costs ranging from $18,435.80 on a partial indemnity scale to $26,366.82 on a full indemnity scale.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the defendants' obstructive conduct but also acknowledging that the plaintiff did not put its best foot forward regarding its productions.

The court fixed costs at $12,500 payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and related economic torts arising from the formation of Icon Plumbing and the departure of key personnel from Riva Plumbing.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants competed unlawfully, misused confidential information, or caused any compensable loss.

The counterclaim for unpaid bonuses by Mike Ladisa and Joseph Ferrari was allowed, with damages awarded in the agreed amount plus interest.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority to revoke and impose conditions on their home construction licences.

The parties reached a settlement and applied to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order revoking certain licences, imposing conditions on others, and requiring the payment of a $60,000 administrative monetary penalty along with the return of over $2.5 million in monetary benefits to affected purchasers.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the orders of Daley J. dated October 12, 2021, and December 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $5,000, payable by the moving parties David Atsushi Ohashi and Pamela Gloria Ohashi.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Daley J. dated October 21, 2021, and December 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Myers J. dated February 25, 2022.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Conlan J. dated November 27, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $5,000.

The moving party, a defendant in the action, brought a motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The plaintiff sought an order to compel the sale of assets (a property, rural land, and vehicles) under Rule 45.01 and 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging asset deterioration and seeking payment into court.

The defendants raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing a Master could not vary a judge's preservation order or grant mandatory injunctive relief.

The Master declined jurisdiction, finding that compelling a sale would effectively set aside or vary existing preservation orders made by a judge, and that mandatory orders are exclusively for judges.

Alternatively, the Master found that even if jurisdiction existed, the relief would not be granted as the assets were adequately protected by existing orders and undertakings, and compelling a sale would prejudice the defendants and a non-party (Jonathan Rewa) without a proven claim.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicants, charged with tax evasion under the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act, brought a Charter motion alleging breaches of their sections 7 and 8 rights.

They argued that a CRA auditor improperly used civil audit powers to gather evidence for a criminal investigation.

The court applied the Jarvis predominant purpose test and found the auditor's focus remained on civil tax liability until the file was referred to criminal investigations.

The court did find a section 8 breach because the search warrant did not explicitly authorize a thorough search of seized electronic data storage units.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2), concluding the breach was minor, the officers acted in good faith, and there is a strong societal interest in adjudicating the serious allegations on their merits.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct a vapour intrusion assessment program at residential properties adjacent to their industrial facility.

After complying with the order and conducting the required sampling, the appellants sought to withdraw their appeals.

With the consent of the Director and no objection from the presenter, the Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review concerning the approval of a wind farm project, the successful respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $163,961.25.

The applicants opposed the costs and sought their own costs, arguing the case involved novel heritage issues and public interest.

The court rejected claims of misconduct from both sides that would justify extraordinary costs.

Acknowledging the public interest and novelty of the heritage issues, the majority reduced the costs award and ordered the applicants to pay $75,000 to the successful respondent.

A dissenting judge would have ordered no costs, emphasizing the importance of public participation in judicial review of government decisions.

The applicants, owners of a designated heritage property, sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to issue a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for a wind farm project.

The applicants argued the Director failed to properly interpret the REA Regulation regarding cultural heritage and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the standard of review was reasonableness, the Director's decision to issue the REA was reasonable and balanced the statutory priorities, and the comprehensive procedural code in the REA Regulation fulfilled the duty of procedural fairness.