Linda Catherine Phillips-Smith

The Defendants, having achieved partial summary judgment in a dispute over condominium unit boundaries and common elements, sought partial indemnity costs of over $100,000.

The Plaintiff, who also achieved partial success on summary judgment, argued for no costs or costs in the cause, asserting that joining all unit owners was necessary and that the adjudication provided clarity for all parties.

The court, acknowledging the divided success and the complex nature of the litigation, determined that an order of no costs was appropriate, finding that the necessity of joining all defendants and the shared benefit of clarifying the issues outweighed the Defendants' arguments for costs.

The plaintiff, owner of a rooftop condominium unit, sued the condominium corporation and other unit owners over the boundaries and exclusive use of common elements (Elevator Landing, Interior Hallway, Roof, South Stairwell) and for torts including trespass and nuisance.

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment.

The court granted partial summary judgment, declaring the Elevator Landing part of the plaintiff's unit, but the Interior Hallway, Roof, and South Stairwell as common elements.

All tort claims against individual unit owners were dismissed.

The appellant purchased a commercial property that was contaminated by hydrocarbons that had migrated from an adjacent former gas station property.

The respondents moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, arguing that the appellant knew or ought to have known of the contamination more than two years before commencing the action.

The motion judge granted the motion, finding that the appellant had knowledge of the claim by March 9, 2012, or alternatively by March 30, 2012.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors by equating the appellant's suspicion of contamination with actual knowledge of contamination, and by failing to consider the relevant circumstances of the multi-property transaction and the waiver of conditions.

The insured sought reimbursement of defence costs incurred in responding to Human Rights Tribunal proceedings, arguing that information disclosed in a policy renewal application constituted notice of a claim under a “claims made and reported” liability policy.

The court held that the disclosure merely referenced the retention of outside counsel and did not objectively communicate a claim or potential claim to the insurer within the policy period.

The insurer had no duty to inquire further upon receiving the renewal application, as the obligation to provide notice rested on the insured.

The late notice deprived the insurer of opportunities to investigate, control the defence, and attempt early resolution, constituting actual prejudice.

Relief from forfeiture under s. 129 of the Insurance Act was unavailable because timely notice is a condition precedent to coverage under claims-made-and-reported policies.

Following the dismissal of a proposed class action certification motion and the dismissal of claims against one defendant for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs for successfully resisting certification and for obtaining dismissal of the claim against the diocesan defendant.

The plaintiffs and the Class Proceedings Fund argued for reductions based on public interest, access to justice concerns, and alleged unnecessary litigation steps.

The court rejected arguments for a public interest or access-to-justice discount and confirmed that the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applies in class proceedings.

The Grenville defendants were awarded their full claimed costs, while the diocesan defendant’s claim was reduced as excessive.