Marie-Andrée Vermette

The plaintiff brought a motion for an order declaring the defendant corporation in contempt of court for breaching a prior consent order (the Deposit Order).

The Deposit Order required the defendant to provide an accounting of mortgage payments and to deposit any payments received into its lawyer's trust account.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally failed to comply with the clear and unequivocal terms of the accounting and deposit provisions.

The defendant was found in contempt, with the penalty to be determined at a subsequent sentencing hearing.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's administrative law claims, which challenged the LSO's licensing examination structure and procedural fairness.

The court dismissed the LSO's motion, finding that the claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action and were better suited for summary judgment or trial.

The court also addressed the plaintiff's attempt to re-add previously struck non-LSO defendants, confirming that these defendants were no longer parties to the action as all claims against them had been struck without leave to amend and they were not necessary parties.

This is a costs endorsement following a decision where Mohammad Hamed Yousufzay was successful in his application and Mohammad Ali Eksir's application was dismissed.

Yousufzay sought full indemnity costs, while Eksir argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court found Yousufzay entitled to costs and awarded them on a substantial indemnity basis due to Eksir's unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty and adverse credibility findings against him.

The court declined full indemnity costs, finding the case did not feature grave misconduct, and awarded $170,000.00 in all-inclusive substantial indemnity costs to Yousufzay.

The plaintiff, Reza Bahramzadeh, sued the Toronto Police Services Board and Officer Amanda Mason for negligence, wrongful arrest, and assault related to his 2008 arrest and a subsequent 2009 assault by a third party while on bail.

The plaintiff alleged excessive force during arrest, fabricated allegations, and police responsibility for the later assault and missing property.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence unreliable and inconsistent with objective records.

It ruled that the plaintiff's attempts to relitigate criminal convictions constituted an abuse of process and that the police had reasonable grounds for arrest.

The court also found no evidence linking the police to the 2009 assault or the missing property, and no negligence in his transport.

The plaintiff's claims for broad social reforms and unrelated relief were deemed inappropriate for the court.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, J.M.L. Holding Corporation and Gary Muchula, sought summary judgment against their former real estate solicitor, David Ryan, alleging professional negligence.

They claimed Mr. Ryan's conduct led to the erroneous sale of a waterfront property they did not intend to sell, seeking $550,000 in damages.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the case presented genuine issues requiring a trial, including significant credibility and reliability issues between the parties, conflicting expert opinions on the standard of care and damages, and an incomplete evidentiary record, particularly regarding the buyer's perspective and the plaintiffs' intentions for the property.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the defendants' counterclaim was granted in part, the parties made submissions on costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs based on the plaintiff's oppressive conduct and a prior award of punitive damages.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs to the defendants, finding it would result in double compensation, and instead awarded partial indemnity costs subject to a significant discount for time spent on unsuccessful allegations.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs to a defendant to the counterclaim who successfully defended against unproven allegations of fraud.

This appeal concerned a decision by the Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) affirming a finding that the appellant was incapable of consenting to antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing medications.

The appellant, who was self-represented, did not appear at the appeal hearing, but amicus curiae provided submissions.

The court admitted fresh evidence regarding mootness but ultimately found the appeal was not moot due to the appellant's ongoing interactions with the mental health system and the potential relevance of a prior capable wish.

The court reviewed the CCB's application of the capacity test under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, and its consideration of the appellant's religious beliefs.

The court found no reviewable errors by the CCB, concluding that the CCB's finding on the appellant's inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of treatment was sufficient, and that the appellant's religious beliefs were a manifestation of his mental condition, not a genuine religious objection.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, who were unsuccessful in their constitutional challenge regarding Ontario's response to climate change, and the respondent, who successfully defended the application, both sought costs.

The respondent sought $45,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the applicants sought $96,999.79 or, alternatively, no costs.

The court applied the factors for public interest litigation and declined to award costs to the successful respondent, noting the applicants had no pecuniary interest, the issues were of existential public importance, and the respondent had superior capacity to bear costs.

The court also declined to award costs to the unsuccessful applicants, finding this was not one of the rare cases justifying such an award.

The court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

This decision concerns a re-assessment of damages in a breach of contract action, remitted by the Court of Appeal due to insufficient evidence in the initial trial.

The plaintiff, Fermar Paving Limited, sought damages from the defendant, 567723 Ontario Limited, for increased costs of aggregate and out-of-pocket expenses after the defendant repudiated a supply agreement.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence regarding the increased cost of aggregate to be largely inadmissible and unproven, particularly concerning cost estimates and missing source documents.

However, the court awarded damages for certain out-of-pocket costs that were adequately substantiated.

The Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS) brought a motion to convert Shu Kuan Li's application for conversion damages into an action and to have it heard together with a separate application by Goldentrust XE Inc. The court dismissed BNS's motion, finding it premature to convert the application to an action as no material facts were in dispute at this stage.

The court also determined that the balance of convenience did not favour hearing the two applications together, emphasizing the distinct nature of the claims and the potential for delay.

The court considered costs submissions following a successful motion by the Defendants to set aside a default judgment.

The Defendants sought partial indemnity costs, while the Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, including costs "thrown away" due to the default.

The court found no evidence of costs "thrown away" by the Plaintiff and noted the Defendants' lack of diligence in the underlying default.

Despite the Defendants' success on the motion to set aside default judgment, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 57.01(1) and ordered that each party bear their own costs, finding it fair and reasonable given the circumstances.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a successful summary judgment motion by the Defendant, Styrok Inc., against the Plaintiff, Liya Fu.

The Defendant sought elevated costs of $15,000 or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs.

The Plaintiff argued for each party to bear their own costs or a reduced partial indemnity amount.

The court rejected the Plaintiff's arguments, finding the Defendant was wholly successful and entitled to costs.

It denied elevated costs, stating the Plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible, and awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $11,335.00, adjusting the Defendant's claimed amount to reflect appropriate partial indemnity rates.

The applicant, a real estate salesperson, sought to invalidate a commission split agreement he entered into with a managing partner of his former brokerage.

He argued the agreement was an unreasonable restraint of trade and lacked consideration, seeking higher commissions on two specific property sales.

The court dismissed the application, finding the agreement was supported by consideration and did not restrict the applicant's ability to compete or solicit after leaving the brokerage.

The court also held that the applicant's claims were based on an incorrect interpretation of the contracts.

This is a costs decision following a judgment in a complex multi-party litigation involving franchise disputes.

The court determined the quantum and scale of costs for various successful and unsuccessful claims and counterclaims.

Premium Host Inc. was awarded partial indemnity costs against Paramount Franchise Group Inc. and related entities.

Versatile Holdings Inc. and Everest Group Inc., whose claims were dismissed, were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to the Paramount group.

The court declined to award elevated costs, reduced the defendants' claimed costs due to duplication and litigation conduct, and clarified the liability of individual guarantors for corporate litigation costs, holding them jointly and severally liable only for costs related to counterclaims where they were proper parties.

This case involved cross-applications between two shareholders/directors of a closely held corporation, United Investment.

Mohammad Ali Eksir sought a declaration of oppression under section 248 of the OBCA and an order to wind up the corporation, alleging self-dealing and financial misconduct by Mohammad Hamed Yousufzay.

Yousufzay sought an order for a shareholder meeting and production of financial records.

The court dismissed Eksir's oppression application, finding he failed to prove his reasonable expectations were violated, as he was aware of and implicitly approved the impugned transactions (shareholder loans, donations, home renovation expenses, snow clearing).

The court also dismissed the request for winding up, stating it was not a just and equitable remedy given the lack of serious harm and the availability of less drastic remedies.

Yousufzay's application for a shareholder meeting with varied quorum requirements under section 106 of the OBCA was granted to allow for the appointment of directors and address corporate governance issues.

The Superior Court of Justice rendered a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action under anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court addressed the appropriate scale and quantum of costs, considering the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs for successful anti-SLAPP motions and recent conflicting Court of Appeal guidance on costs guidelines.

The court awarded the Canadian Nurses Association Defendants $250,000.00 on a full indemnity basis and the Together News Inc. Defendants $65,000.00 on a substantial indemnity basis, finding these amounts fair and reasonable given the case's complexity and the parties' expectations prior to new appellate guidance.

The defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to her persistent failure to comply with discovery obligations, including attending a court-ordered in-person examination for discovery by September 30, 2022.

This followed a "last chance order" issued on June 20, 2022.

The plaintiff, self-represented, failed to provide valid explanations for her non-compliance and made unsubstantiated allegations of judicial bias.

The court found the plaintiff's non-compliance to be contumacious and granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the action.

The applicant, EDE Capital Inc., sought to set aside two arbitral awards: a Partial Award on Damages and a Partial Award on Costs.

The applicant argued that the arbitrator breached procedural fairness by reopening issues and making inconsistent findings, exceeded jurisdiction by affecting non-parties, and mischaracterized claims under the Securities Act.

The court determined that the International Commercial Arbitration Act (ICAA) and the Model Law applied due to one respondent's habitual residence in China.

The court dismissed the application, finding no serious procedural unfairness or excess of jurisdiction, and affirmed the arbitrator's decision, including the costs award.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs after successfully appealing a Master's order and denying leave to appeal a costs decision.

The court denied substantial indemnity, finding the plaintiff's offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49.10 consequences due to minimal compromise and timing.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $26,500, finding the plaintiff's counsel hours and rates reasonable given the complexity and volume of the appeal, and noting the defendants' costs outline was not credible.

This decision addresses the costs award following the dismissal of an action under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act (an anti-SLAPP motion).

The successful defendant sought full indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs argued for partial indemnity due to the defendant's delay in bringing the anti-SLAPP motion.

The court awarded full indemnity costs for the anti-SLAPP motion itself and partial indemnity costs for the remainder of the action, finding that delay warranted a discount from full indemnity for the action's costs but not a "double discount" or a reduction for the motion costs.