M. Dale Parayeski

Following a family law hearing, the court addressed the parties’ competing submissions on costs.

The court considered the applicable Rules governing costs and the parties’ settlement positions.

The respondent argued that he had achieved success warranting a costs award; however, the court found that success in the proceeding was divided.

The respondent’s complicated and insufficiently explained income situation made proper evaluation of his offer to settle difficult, and the applicant’s decision not to accept it was not unreasonable.

The court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

Following a wrongful dismissal trial, the only remaining issue concerned the quantum of partial indemnity costs payable by the employer to the employee.

The employee sought over $455,000 in costs, including a large disbursement for services provided by a corporate entity associated with a lay witness who assisted counsel and testified at trial.

The court found several categories of claimed legal fees excessive, particularly for pleadings and trial preparation, and held that the defendant should not bear the cost of premium legal services retained by the plaintiff.

The court also significantly reduced the claimed disbursement for the lay witness’s advisory services, noting that much of the evidence was rejected and the invoices lacked sufficient detail.

Fees and disbursements were therefore substantially reduced.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking injunctive relief for alleged passing off, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court considered written submissions on scale and quantum.

Given that the plaintiff had expanded the issues leading to additional cross-examinations and motion materials before narrowing the argument at the last minute, the court found substantial indemnity costs were appropriate.

However, the amount claimed was found excessive due to duplication of effort and lack of detailed particulars.

Costs were fixed at $12,500 all-inclusive.

The defendant moved to enforce a settlement agreement reached via email shortly before trial.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the offer did not comply with Rule 49, there was no meeting of the minds, and she had a right to rescind under the Statutory Accident Benefits regulations.

The court found the offer was clear and unconditionally accepted, and that misapprehension by plaintiff's counsel did not void the settlement.

Following appellate authority, the court held that engaging in litigation precludes relying on SABS rescission rights to avoid a Rule 49 settlement.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted.

A mortgagee sought costs following motions in a mortgage enforcement action where it obtained summary judgment against the mortgagors.

The mortgagors had unsuccessfully alleged that the property was sold for less than fair market value and were only notionally successful on a venue motion with no practical effect after summary judgment was granted.

The mortgage required the mortgagors to indemnify the mortgagee for enforcement costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found the mortgagee’s costs outline reasonable and awarded fees and disbursements on a full indemnity scale.

The appellant was successful in an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision and sought costs of $17,185.79 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs as there was no relevant offer to settle.

Applying the factors in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the amount at issue ($10,000) and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court found the requested amount unreasonable.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant financed repairs to the respondent's leased vehicle and registered a lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

When the respondent defaulted, the appellant seized the vehicle.

The Small Claims Court ordered the vehicle returned with damages, finding the seizure was not commercially reasonable under the Personal Property Security Act.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the trial judgment, holding that the trial judge applied the wrong statute, misinterpreted the contract, and awarded inappropriate damages without a solid evidentiary basis.

The appellant was granted liberty to sell the vehicle.

The employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding that the employee was terminated by operation of the Employment Standards Act due to prolonged layoffs, and awarding common law damages.

The employer argued that damages should be restricted to the statutory minimums.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act does not create a ceiling for damages.

A cross-appeal by the employee regarding the deduction of mitigation earnings was also dismissed.

The damages were reduced by $200 to account for an unpaid loan.

The defendants, who were successful at trial, brought a motion for security for costs of the plaintiff's appeal under Rule 61.06(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario and that there was good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, as the trial judge had made strong adverse credibility findings against the plaintiff and rejected his expert evidence.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $10,000 into court as security for the defendants' costs of the appeal.