Lindsay Poole

This is a costs decision following a summary trial in which the plaintiff's action for 50 percent of the defendant's $301,000 casino jackpot winnings was dismissed.

The action was based on alleged breach of an oral contract, breach of trust, and unjust enrichment.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $79,750.65, while the plaintiff argued for a reduced award of $25,000.

The court awarded the defendant $40,773.84 in costs, considering factors including the nature of the dispute, the use of two counsel, conduct issues involving a witness, and the principle that costs awards should be fair and reasonable rather than blindly reflecting actual costs incurred.

The plaintiff sought half of a casino royal flush jackpot won by his brother, alleging breach of an oral jackpot-sharing agreement, breach of trust, and unjust enrichment.

The court found there had been a longstanding arrangement to share significant gambling winnings when the brothers attended and played together, but that arrangement was narrowed by an April 17, 2022 text exchange to apply only when both were there together.

Because the defendant won the jackpot while alone, the revised agreement did not apply and there was no breach.

The court also rejected the trust and unjust enrichment claims and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Garlicky Mediterranean Grill Inc., finding no error in the application judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s email correspondence did not amount to the exercise of an option to renew the lease.

The court held that the findings below were entitled to deference and awarded costs to the respondent.