Marie-Andrée Vermette

The court determined the scale and quantum of costs following previous motions.

Primont Homes (Vaughan) Inc. sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing delay and unproven fraud allegations by the defendants, Maplequest (Vaughan) Developments Inc. and 2373480 Ontario Inc. The defendants argued for reduced partial indemnity costs due to mixed success and over-lawyering by Primont.

The court found partial indemnity was appropriate, rejecting substantial indemnity as the fraud allegations were not adjudicated on their merits.

The court also reduced Primont's requested quantum due to its unsuccessful abuse of process argument and duplicative work by its multiple timekeepers, ultimately awarding $140,000.00 in partial indemnity costs.

This endorsement addresses costs following a judgment where the plaintiff was awarded damages significantly below her claim and the simplified procedure cap.

The City of Toronto sought costs based on unaccepted offers to settle.

The court denied the plaintiff any costs due to her failure to submit costs submissions and because her award was less than 50% of the simplified procedure cap, making it unreasonable to continue under ordinary procedure.

The City's offers to settle, which included a requirement for a future-negotiated standard release, were found not to trigger Rule 49.10 costs consequences, consistent with *D’Anscenzo v. Nichols*.

However, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 49.13, considering the plaintiff's unrealistic claims, litigation delays, and failure to accept reasonable offers.

The City was awarded $35,000 in partial indemnity costs.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the successful summary judgment motions by the defendants, Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences and Dr. Omar Ghaffar, which dismissed the plaintiff's action.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to submit costs submissions.

The court awarded discounted costs to the defendants, finding their claims reasonable given the serious allegations, voluminous medical records, and the necessity of expert reports, despite the plaintiff's self-represented status and limited means.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a laptop and subsequent searches conducted under warrants for a vehicle and inmate property.

The court found the warrantless laptop search to be a serious Charter breach due to reckless disregard for rights, leading to the exclusion of observations made from the laptop.

However, evidence obtained from the search of a vehicle and the applicant's inmate property vault, which were conducted under warrants, was admitted.

The court reasoned that the connection between the initial laptop breach and the subsequent warrant searches was attenuated, the privacy expectation in the vehicle was minimal, and the evidence from the vehicle was independently discoverable.

This case involved a dispute between ex-spouses, Kathie Debren (Plaintiff) and Kevin Debren (Defendant), primarily concerning the ownership of a cottage property.

Both parties had a history of fraudulent financial conduct, including sham divorces and bankruptcies with undisclosed assets.

The court found both parties lacked credibility, except for their son, Montana Debren (Third Party), who was drawn into the litigation.

Kevin Debren's counterclaim for beneficial ownership or compensation for property improvements was dismissed due to a lack of credible evidence and the vesting of pre-discharge claims in his trustee in bankruptcy.

Kathie Debren was declared entitled to possession of the cottage, subject to conditions imposed by her trustee in bankruptcy to ensure creditor payment.

Kevin Debren's third-party claim against Montana Debren was also dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against her former employer.

The court found the termination provisions in the employment agreement unenforceable as they violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The plaintiff, who worked as an executive assistant for 4.5 months, was awarded a two-month reasonable notice period.

The court awarded damages for lost salary, benefits, earned bonus, accrued vacation, and unpaid expenses.

The court dismissed the claim for mental distress damages due to lack of evidence but awarded $10,000 in punitive damages for the employer's flagrant and repeated failures to comply with minimum statutory entitlements.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action alleging a binding agreement for the purchase of a property.

The plaintiff claimed an oral agreement was reached and subsequently reduced to writing via email exchanges, or alternatively, that a binding agreement was formed through later email communications.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the objective evidence, particularly the parties' written communications, demonstrated a lack of intention to create a legally binding relationship and an absence of agreement on essential terms, such as the closing date.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment due to a lack of tangible benefit to the defendants.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant hospital for damages arising from sexual abuse he suffered in 1983 while attending an alternative school located on the hospital's grounds.

The plaintiff alleged that the director of the school, who was also his tutor, sexually battered him and that the hospital was vicariously liable and negligent.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the director did commit sexual battery against the plaintiff.

However, the court dismissed the action, concluding that the hospital was not vicariously liable because the relationship between the hospital and the director was not sufficiently close, as the director operated the school independently.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to establish negligence on the part of the hospital.

The accused, C.N.B., was charged with 12 counts of assault, assault with a weapon, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, and sexual assault against his minor daughter, V.N. C.N.B. pleaded guilty to a portion of one assault count but denied all other allegations.

The trial focused on credibility, particularly of the child complainant, V.N., and the accused.

The court applied principles from R. v. W.(D.) and found V.N. and her mother, P.C., to be credible and reliable witnesses, despite minor inconsistencies.

The accused and his son, C.N., were found not credible.

The court found the accused guilty on all twelve counts, noting that some counts might be subject to the rule against multiple convictions at sentencing.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful motion by the defendants (Smiths) to set aside a noting in default.

Both the defendants, who were successful on the underlying motion, and the plaintiff sought costs.

The court clarified that there is no general rule precluding a party seeking an indulgence from being awarded costs, emphasizing that costs decisions are discretionary.

Despite the Smiths' success on the underlying motion, the court found their lack of diligence, failure to comply with court orders, and deficient materials weighed against a costs award.

Similarly, the plaintiff was denied costs due to their lack of diligence in pursuing the action and contributing to the delay.

Ultimately, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs for the motion.

The defendants, Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences and Dr. Omar Ghaffar, brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss a medical malpractice action.

The plaintiff, Donald Jameson Whitehead, failed to file any expert evidence or affidavit evidence in response, despite being self-represented and advised of the requirements.

The court found that the defendants had discharged their evidentiary burden by providing expert opinions that their care met the standard of care and that consent was properly obtained.

Given the plaintiff's failure to adduce expert evidence, which is generally fatal in medical malpractice cases except in the clearest of circumstances, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

This endorsement concerns the costs of a successful motion by the Defendant to strike the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim.

The Defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $15,000, citing the Plaintiff's unreasonable conduct and a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The Plaintiff argued for no costs or partial indemnity, claiming the Defendant's costs were exaggerated and their offer to settle was not effective.

The court awarded the Defendant partial indemnity costs of $9,000, finding the Plaintiff's conduct did not meet the high threshold for substantial indemnity, and the Defendant's Rule 49 offer did not trigger enhanced costs because it was not more favourable than the amount recovered when evaluated at the time of the offer.

This endorsement addresses the costs for two applications arising from a failed residential real estate transaction.

The Sellers, who were successful in the main applications (dismissing the Buyers' application and granting their own for damages), sought substantial indemnity costs.

The Buyers argued for a lower partial indemnity award.

The court found that the Sellers' offer to settle, though with limited compromise, triggered Rule 49.10, entitling them to substantial indemnity costs from the offer date.

Despite a significant discrepancy in legal fees and hours between the parties, the court applied a reduction for potential "overkill" by the Sellers' counsel, ultimately awarding the Sellers $55,000.00 in all-inclusive costs.

The plaintiff, having partially succeeded in her wrongful dismissal action, sought costs.

The defendant argued its earlier offer to settle engaged Rule 49.10, entitling it to costs from the offer date.

The court found the defendant's offer did not trigger Rule 49.10 due to an uncertain release condition, following D'Anscenzo v. Nichols.

Despite divided success, the plaintiff was deemed the successful party.

However, due to significant divided success (failure to prove damages for loss of book of business) and the plaintiff's rejection of a near-mirror offer, her costs were significantly reduced.

The court awarded the plaintiff 30% of her partial indemnity costs, totaling $72,000.00.

The plaintiff, Ruth Kidane, brought an action for damages following a slip and fall on a sidewalk.

Liability was admitted by the City of Toronto, leaving causation and damages as the sole issues at trial.

The plaintiff sought over $1.2 million in damages, attributing various chronic health issues and an inability to start a daycare business to the fall.

The court applied a robust and pragmatic approach to causation, finding that the fall caused a minor head injury/concussion, multiple soft tissue injuries, and low mood, which resolved within one year.

The court rejected the plaintiff's claims for other injuries and long-term effects, attributing them to pre-existing conditions.

The court awarded $45,000 for general damages, $4,000 for loss of income (limited to 2014), and $161.05 for out-of-pocket expenses, totaling $49,161.05.

This application concerned a dispute over a Costs Sharing Agreement between Manning Developments Inc. and the Municipality of Lakeshore, primarily focusing on the issue of costs.

The applicant, Manning, sought various orders compelling the respondent, Lakeshore, to fulfill obligations under the agreement, such as providing accounting, engineering drawings, and conveying land.

The court found that most of the relief sought by Manning was either moot, premature, or lacked practical utility, as Lakeshore had largely complied or was prepared to comply when conditions were met.

The court determined that Manning's conduct, including commencing and quickly discontinuing a "Misfeasance Action" against Lakeshore's council members and staff, necessitated Lakeshore bringing a separate Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) application.

The court concluded that Manning's application constituted "harassment of another party by the pursuit of fruitless litigation" and dismissed the application.

Lakeshore was awarded substantial indemnity costs for the main application and partial indemnity costs for the related MCIA application.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a dismissed interlocutory injunction motion brought by the Applicants and a granted cross-motion for consolidation brought by the Respondents.

The Respondents, as successful parties, sought substantial indemnity costs, citing egregious conduct and reasonable settlement offers.

The Applicants argued for costs in the cause or partial indemnity, denying bad faith.

The court ordered costs payable forthwith on a partial indemnity basis, finding no reprehensible conduct warranting substantial indemnity and noting the limited compromise in the Respondents' settlement offers.

The quantum of costs claimed by the Respondents was reduced due to excessive hours, particularly for the consolidation motion.

The plaintiff, Primont Homes (Vaughan) Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants, Maplequest (Vaughan) Developments Inc. and 2373480 Ontario Inc., from dealing with certain land lots, asserting a contractual right to acquire them.

The defendants moved to dissolve an existing interim injunction, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate undertaking as to damages and made material non-disclosures.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions to dissolve the interim injunction, finding them precluded by Rule 2.02 due to significant delay.

The court then granted the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction, determining there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the enforceability of the agreement and entitlement to specific performance, that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm due to the primary defendant's inability to satisfy a damages award, and that the balance of convenience favored maintaining the injunction.

The court also found the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages sufficient given the defendants' failure to quantify their potential damages from delay.

The third parties, a lawyer and his professional corporation, moved to strike a third party claim brought against them by the defendants.

The defendants alleged negligence and other torts regarding the lawyer's preparation of a mortgage and subsequent enforcement proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff.

The court struck the claim, finding that opposing counsel owes no duty of care to the defendants, the claims regarding the mortgage were statute-barred, and the claims regarding enforcement proceedings were barred by absolute privilege.

Leave to amend was granted only for claims relating to a specific property transfer.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a judgment where the plaintiffs largely succeeded in their action for partition and sale and successfully defended against the defendant's counterclaim, with the exception of a minor payment to the defendant.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, or alternatively, partial indemnity.

The defendant argued for a lower award, citing partial success and excessive hours claimed by the plaintiffs.

The court determined that the defendant's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs, finding that hard-fought litigation alone is insufficient.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the plaintiffs' claimed hours due to some duplication of work, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs an all-inclusive amount of $125,000.00.

The court also noted that offers to settle could not be assessed for Rule 49.10 consequences due to fluctuating property values.