Malte von Anrep

Costs decision following a defamation trial where the plaintiff was successful against two defendants but unsuccessful against a third.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $64,000.

The court awarded the plaintiff $35,177.74 in costs, noting mixed success on the issues.

The successful self-represented defendant was awarded $2,000 in costs against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a non-profit seniors' residence, brought a defamation action against a former board president and a self-described journalist over an online article and a letter alleging financial irregularities, fraud, and tenant abuse.

The court found the statements defamatory.

The defendants successfully established the defences of justification and fair comment regarding the financial irregularities, as the court found the plaintiff had violated its own purchasing policies.

However, the defences failed regarding the allegations of tenant abuse, which were not substantially true.

The defence of responsible communication also failed because the journalist did not diligently investigate the plaintiff's side of the story.

The court awarded $10,000 in general damages and ordered the article removed.

Following a lengthy trial in which the defendants obtained a largely favourable judgment and anticipated a substantial costs award, the defendants brought a motion seeking the appointment of a receiver over the plaintiff corporation pending determination of trial costs.

The plaintiff argued that the motion was barred because it had filed a notice of appeal, triggering the automatic stay of money judgments under Rule 63.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the requested receivership was not enforcement of a money judgment but a preservative measure intended to protect the corporation’s assets until costs were determined.

Accordingly, the automatic stay did not apply and the court retained jurisdiction to hear a motion for a receiver.

The defendants were permitted to return the motion for a full hearing on whether appointing a receiver would be just or convenient under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff purchased a hearing clinic from the defendants and later alleged numerous fraudulent misrepresentations relating to patient numbers, referrals, profitability, and other operational matters.

After a lengthy 72‑day trial spanning several years and extensive documentary evidence, the court found the plaintiff’s principal witness unreliable and rejected the majority of alleged misrepresentations.

While the defendants had knowledge that a former employee may have possessed a patient list, the court held that the plaintiff failed to prove reliance or damages arising from that nondisclosure.

Several minor breaches of the asset purchase agreement were established, including issues relating to keys, inventory removal, software discs, QuickBooks data, and Canada Post mail handling, but damages were minimal.

The moving party sought to vary a spousal support order following a catastrophic stroke that significantly reduced his income.

The responding party opposed termination of support, asserting inability to work due to fibromyalgia and ongoing financial need.

The court found a material change in circumstances under s. 17(4.1) of the Divorce Act due to the payor’s permanent disability and reduced income.

The court rejected the recipient’s claim of unemployability due to insufficient medical evidence and imputed minimum-wage income, and also drew adverse inferences regarding financial need because the recipient was cohabiting with a new partner without providing financial disclosure.

Spousal support was reduced substantially and structured to decline in stages rather than terminated.

During a civil trial arising from the purchase of a hearing clinic business, the plaintiff sought leave mid‑trial to adduce additional evidence from its first witness concerning alleged improper professional practices and billing irregularities by the defendants.

The defendants ultimately consented to the admission of the evidence on the condition that the trial be briefly adjourned and that they receive substantial indemnity costs.

The court granted the adjournment, finding the plaintiff’s late introduction of extensive new documentary evidence and allegations unjustified and disruptive to the defence.

Although the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining leave to present the additional evidence, the court held that the lateness of the motion constituted litigation misconduct warranting costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Beneficiaries of an estate brought a motion seeking repayment of a solicitor’s retainer paid from estate funds, denial of compensation to the estate trustee, and costs.

The court found the legal services rendered to the estate trustee were reasonable and declined to order repayment of the retainer.

The request to deny trustee compensation was dismissed as premature because the estate trustee had not yet presented accounts for approval.

However, the court held that the trustee’s delay, lack of transparency, and inaccurate disclosure forced the beneficiaries to bring the application and awarded them costs personally against the trustee.