LeMay

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce an arbitration award against the self-represented respondent.

The respondent requested an adjournment to obtain counsel, which the court denied due to significant prior delays and the straightforward nature of the enforcement application.

Finding no pending appeal and that the appeal period had expired, the court ordered the enforcement of the arbitration award pursuant to section 50 of the Arbitration Act.

Following a successful motion by the respondent to enforce a settlement regarding farm properties, the respondent and third party sought their costs.

The applicant argued that success was divided and each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful as he obtained the order enforcing the settlement.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to the respondent and $2,500 to the third party.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a motion brought by the defendants to set aside a charging order in favour of their former counsel.

The former counsel sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on unaccepted offers to settle and the defendants' unsupported allegations of fraud against him.

The court refused to defer the costs determination to a future assessment hearing.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the former counsel, finding that the defendants' unproven and unsupported allegations of fraud warranted sanction, and fixed the costs at $5,400.

In a long-running dispute over a solicitor's account, the solicitor objected to the client's late delivery of a supplementary expert report regarding alleged spoliation of computer files.

The case management judge found that the client's counsel breached prior case management directions by serving the report late and in an obscure manner.

However, because the solicitor had also been granted an extension to file her own expert report, the court admitted the client's late report to ensure procedural fairness, while adjourning the trial and setting strict new timelines.

The defendant sought to proceed with a summary judgment motion, but an issue remained regarding the cross-examination of experts.

The plaintiff argued the matter was too complicated for summary judgment and should proceed to trial.

The court rejected this argument, holding that the defendant was entitled to have its motion heard.

The court directed that the experts be cross-examined in open court on all issues relating to their reports, not just their qualifications, to allow the court to exercise its gatekeeper function regarding the admissibility of the evidence.

The client brought an assessment of the solicitor's account, which had been ongoing for ten years.

The parties sought further production and particulars from each other.

The client argued the solicitor should be estopped from seeking production due to delay, which the court dismissed, noting ongoing preservation obligations.

The court applied the principle of proportionality to limit the scope of discovery and ordered both parties to provide specific documents and particulars to ensure each side knew the case to meet, despite the solicitor bearing the ultimate burden of proof.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to follow-up questions posed in a written examination for discovery, following an earlier oral examination and a previous court order regarding refusals.

The underlying action involves an alleged assault in the defendant bank's ATM vestibule.

The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to conduct a full written discovery after an oral discovery without leave, but were permitted to ask reasonable follow-up questions arising from undertakings and refusals.

The court applied the principle of proportionality, limiting the scope of questions primarily to the specific branch where the incident occurred, and provided a detailed schedule ruling on each of the 40 disputed questions.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action under the Construction Lien Act after the plaintiff's lien expired.

The court considered whether it had discretion under section 46 of the Act to allow the underlying contract claim to continue despite the expiry of the lien.

Following appellate authority, the court found it had discretion to permit the contract action to proceed to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The court exercised its discretion to allow the action to continue on terms, finding no irremediable prejudice to the defendant and favouring the resolution of disputes on their merits.

In an ongoing assessment of a solicitor's costs, the client sought to introduce evidence of an allegedly improperly commissioned 2015 affidavit and the solicitor's counsel's disciplinary history in Tennessee to attack the solicitor's credibility regarding a 2008 affidavit.

The court ruled the evidence inadmissible, enforcing a prior agreement between the parties not to litigate the 2015 affidavit.

The court also found the evidence failed the test for similar fact evidence and its admission would be highly prejudicial as it would force the solicitor's counsel to become a witness and remove himself from the record.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike paragraphs from the defendants' amended statement of defence, arguing they were irrelevant and would delay the trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the impugned paragraphs were directly responsive to the statement of claim and arguably relevant to the issues of conspiracy and constructive dismissal.

Additionally, the court awarded $500 in costs to the self-represented defendants for a prior motion regarding document privilege, finding they had demonstrated an opportunity cost.

Following the plaintiff's successful resistance of the defendants' motion to transfer the action from Toronto to Brampton, the court determined costs.

The plaintiff had offered to consent to the transfer on a without-costs basis, but the defendants aggressively sought costs regardless.

The court found the plaintiff's opposition reasonable given the defendants' stance and awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $1,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendant successfully brought a motion to quash the plaintiff's appeal of an interlocutory order and successfully resisted the plaintiff's motion to extend the time to appeal.

The court awarded the defendant full indemnity costs of $5,997.49 for the motion to quash, finding the plaintiff's pursuit of the appeal in the wrong forum was entirely unnecessary despite repeated warnings.

The court also awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $1,500.00 for the motion to extend time, noting efficiencies between the two interrelated motions.

In this case management endorsement, the court addressed several procedural issues between the parties.

The court set a schedule for written submissions to settle the terms of a previous order, established a contingent timetable for pleadings pending an appeal, ordered the return of the plaintiff's devices, and directed further submissions on a document protocol and costs.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to remain in the home she occupied with the deceased, the respondent sought costs of $40,681.76 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found there was divided success, as the applicant had obtained some relief on consent and in a prior appearance.

Considering the narrow scope of the issue, the respondent's unnecessary landlord and tenant proceeding, and the applicant's financial circumstances, the court awarded the respondent reduced costs of $4,000, deferred until after the sale of an estate property.

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 applicant successfully brought a motion to discharge a writ of execution registered against the matrimonial home by the respondent's former solicitor for unpaid legal fees.

The applicant then sought full indemnity costs for the motion.

The court awarded costs of $8,667.79 on a full indemnity basis, finding that the applicant had made a reasonable offer to settle that exceeded the third party's recovery, and that the third party had taken unreasonable positions in opposing the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add their own insurer as a defendant and to extend the time for serving the statement of claim on the defendant vehicle owner, along with a request for substituted service.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel had been highly dilatory in pursuing the claim.

The court allowed the addition of the insurer as a defendant, noting a triable issue regarding discoverability, but preserved the insurer's right to plead a limitation defence.

However, the court dismissed the motions to extend time for service and for substituted service against the vehicle owner, finding the plaintiff failed to provide evidence rebutting the presumption of prejudice arising from the expired limitation period and failed to make sufficient efforts at personal service.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs decision, which was previously denied.

The court then received written submissions regarding the costs of the leave to appeal application.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the matter was complex, unnecessarily lengthened by the applicant, and entirely successful.

The court agreed, noting the applicant's late filings, lack of merit, incomplete materials, and allegations of bias.

The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent full indemnity costs in the amount of $17,253.00.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of his 14-year-old niece relating to two separate incidents.

The first incident allegedly occurred in a hotel room in Sault Ste.

Marie, and the second in a laundry room in Brampton.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility.

The court found the accused not guilty of the hotel room incident due to reasonable doubt arising from unclear evidence.

However, the court found the accused guilty of the laundry room incident, rejecting his evidence and accepting the complainant's testimony beyond a reasonable doubt.

During a criminal trial, the Crown sought a ruling that the accused's videotaped statement to police was voluntary and admissible for cross-examination.

The accused brought a cross-application to exclude the statement, alleging breaches of his section 7 right to silence and section 10(b) right to counsel.

The court applied the Oickle test and found the statement voluntary, noting no threats, inducements, oppression, or police trickery that would overbear the accused's operating mind.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding that police persuasion did not violate section 7 and that the police did not denigrate counsel or violate section 10(b).