Leanne Marie Frances Gruppuso

In a costs endorsement following a security-for-costs motion, the court considered competing claims under Rules 49.10 and 49.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The responding parties argued their settlement offers attracted mandatory costs consequences, while the moving party sought full partial-indemnity costs as successful party.

The court held the offers were not equivalent or more favourable than the prior order and therefore did not trigger Rule 49.10, but gave them weight under Rule 49.13.

Given divided success and proportionality, the court reduced the amount claimed and fixed costs payable to the moving party.

The appellants appealed a Capital Markets Tribunal decision finding they committed securities fraud by selling cryptocurrency tokens falsely represented as backed by gold bullion and misappropriating investor funds.

On appeal, they argued the Tribunal erred by admitting compelled interview transcripts, finding the tokens were securities, denying an adjournment, and imposing unfit sanctions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that compelled testimony is admissible in the same regulatory proceeding, the tokens met the test for an investment contract, and the Tribunal's factual findings and sanctions were reasonable and entitled to deference.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an application to enforce an oral agreement and the granting of an application for partition and sale of property.

The successful parties (Bruno Rosso, Nancy Rosso, and Salvatore Rosso) sought costs awards.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale to Bruno and Nancy, and on a partial indemnity scale to Salvatore.

The court considered factors including the complete success of the parties, the complexity of the issues, the proportionality of costs to the property value, the reasonableness of counsel fees and time spent, and the conduct of the unsuccessful party during litigation.

The appellants appealed a judgment awarding them financial compensation rather than a 45 percent ownership interest in the respondent corporation under the oppression remedy provisions of the Business Corporations Act.

The appellants argued the application judge failed to give effect to their reasonable expectation that shares would be issued pursuant to a non-binding term sheet.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge properly considered the appellants' reasonable expectations, correctly concluded the term sheet was not a binding agreement to issue shares, and appropriately exercised his broad remedial discretion in awarding financial compensation instead of shares.

The court considered two competing applications between brothers who jointly owned a triplex property.

Domenic Rosso sought to enforce an alleged oral agreement for the purchase of Bruno Rosso’s one-third interest in the property, while Bruno Rosso sought partition and sale of the property.

The court found that there was no enforceable oral contract due to lack of agreement on essential terms, and that even if there had been, it would have been unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds and not saved by part performance.

The court granted Bruno’s application for partition and sale, and ordered an accounting.