Martin Z. Rosenbaum

A party brought a motion seeking costs personally against his former lawyer under Rule 24(9) of the Family Law Rules after incurring significant expenses due to the lawyer’s failure to protect the party’s procedural rights in a family proceeding.

The lawyer had been retained while the client was already in default but failed to notify opposing counsel, file an answer, or take steps to secure consent or an order permitting late filing.

As a result, the opposing party proceeded toward an uncontested trial, causing unnecessary litigation steps and costs.

Applying the two‑stage analysis for costs against counsel, the court found the lawyer’s conduct negligently caused unnecessary costs and was inconsistent with the goals of the justice system.

The court exercised its discretion to order the lawyer personally to reimburse the client for $14,500 in costs.

The plaintiff and other lien claimants sought a determination of the basic holdback amount under the Construction Lien Act following the sale of a partially completed retirement home project by the defendant mortgagee.

The mortgagee argued the holdback was reduced by payments made to sub-trades during construction.

The court found that the owner violated section 25 of the Act by releasing holdback funds before certificates of completion were issued, and that such a breach could not be cured retroactively.

The court fixed the basic holdback at the full 10% of the value of services and materials provided, plus applicable GST.