4 total
The court awarded the successful plaintiff $33,250 in costs, significantly reducing the claimed amount as excessive despite a contractual full indemnity provision.
The court considered costs following motions regarding possession of property and a certificate of pending litigation.
The Plaintiff sought full indemnity costs, while the Defendant argued for each party to bear their own costs or for a reduction.
The court reviewed the Bill of Costs, found the Plaintiff’s claim excessive, and awarded a reduced sum of $33,250, including disbursements, to the Plaintiff.
The decision discusses the principles for awarding costs, including contractual entitlements and the requirement that costs be fair and reasonable.
Motion for stay of mortgage enforcement dismissed, but costs denied due to respondent's inappropriate conduct.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion by Jonny’s Antiques Ltd. for a stay pending appeal in a mortgage enforcement dispute with 2642948 Ontario Inc. The court found that the grounds of appeal were weak, there was no evidence of irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.
The court also declined to award costs to 2642948 Ontario Inc. due to its conduct in accelerating the closing of the property sale without notice to Jonny’s Antiques Ltd.
The court set aside an ex parte order for a certificate of pending litigation and affirmed the mortgagee's right to peaceable possession.
The court considered competing motions regarding possession of a commercial property and the discharge of a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) in the context of a mortgage default.
The Plaintiff, a holding company, sought to set aside an ex parte order granting the CPL and to be declared in possession of the property.
The Defendant argued an oral agreement allowed indefinite interest-only payments and challenged the Plaintiff’s right to possession.
The court found the Defendant failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, that the Plaintiff was entitled to possession under the mortgage and the Mortgages Act, and that the CPL should be vacated.
The Plaintiff’s motion was granted and the Defendant’s dismissed.
The court awarded $30,000 in damages for online defamation and privacy breaches between former friends.
This case involved cross-claims for defamation between two former friends, Cassidy LeBlanc and Taylor Carvello-Crotty, arising from internet posts.
The court found both parties defamed each other, but most claims were dismissed due to expired limitation periods.
Taylor's counterclaim for defamation regarding Cassidy's TikTok posts and for public disclosure of private facts was successful.
The court awarded Taylor $30,000 in damages and issued mutual injunctions prohibiting further defamatory statements and ordering removal of existing defamatory posts.
