Leonie Van Haeren

The applicant brought a motion in a partition and sale proceeding to bar the respondent from claiming expenses due to missed court-ordered deadlines, and to determine the appropriate property valuation for a buyout.

The court exercised its discretion to allow the respondent to rely on late-filed expense particulars to avoid a potential windfall, but barred any further supplementation.

On the valuation issue, the court held that the buyout must proceed based on the property's highest and best use valuation of $1.5 million, rather than its 'as is' residential value.

Substantial indemnity costs of $22,000 were awarded to the applicant.

Following a trial where the defendants successfully defended against the plaintiffs' claims and succeeded on their counterclaim for oppression and breach of fiduciary duty, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of over $650,000 based on the plaintiffs' reprehensible conduct.

The plaintiffs argued they were entitled to costs because they received more money for their shares than the defendants had offered.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding the defendants were the successful parties.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs because the defendants had willfully and repeatedly breached prior court orders requiring them to reimburse the plaintiffs for certain expenses.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs fixed at $450,000.