Megan Hodges

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action at trial, the defendant sought costs on a full indemnity scale pursuant to a contractual provision in the parties' agreement.

The plaintiffs argued that the provision did not apply to declaratory relief and did not explicitly state 'full indemnity'.

The court held that the contractual language allowing recovery of 'all reasonable costs' entitled the defendant to full indemnity costs.

However, the court declined to award costs for the defendant's U.S. counsel, finding their involvement was not reasonably required for the Ontario litigation.

The court awarded the defendant its Canadian counsel's fees and disbursements in full, totaling $2,192,609.12, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate given the high stakes of the commercial dispute.

The applicants subscribed for flow-through shares in mining companies, which renounced Canadian exploration expenses to them.

The CRA later reassessed the companies and the applicants, disallowing the expenses.

The applicants sought immediate indemnification from the respondent under their subscription agreements for the taxes paid under the reassessments.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the indemnities were not payable until the amount of taxes was 'definitively determined' or 'determined', which had not yet occurred as the respondent's appeal of the CRA reassessment was still pending.

The moving parties sought an interlocutory stay of an order requiring them to disclose identifying information of primary market investors, pending their motion for leave to appeal that order.

The Divisional Court granted the stay on an interim basis, finding that the motion for leave to appeal had some prospect of success, the moving parties would suffer irreparable harm if the disclosure was made before the leave motion was decided, and the balance of convenience favoured a brief delay.

The court emphasized that interim stays pending leave to appeal should be addressed expeditiously to minimize prejudice.

The defendant brought a motion to permanently or temporarily stay the Ontario action in favour of proceedings in Florida.

The plaintiff, a Florida mortgage lender, commenced the Ontario action to enforce a personal guarantee signed by the defendant in Toronto.

The defendant argued that Florida was the more appropriate forum due to ongoing foreclosure and deficiency proceedings against his company in Florida, as well as a separate action he commenced there alleging fraud.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant failed to establish that Florida was the clearly more appropriate forum, as the key witnesses and the defendant were in Ontario, and the guarantee was signed in Ontario.

The court also declined to grant a temporary stay, noting that the Florida proceedings involved different parties and subject matter.

The plaintiff initiated an action against the defendant for a loan guarantee.

The defendant sought to stay the action on the basis of *forum non conveniens*, arguing a Florida proceeding was more appropriate.

Due to COVID-19 disruptions, a case conference was held to establish a timetable for the defendant's motion.

The parties disagreed on the hearing format and the defendant's obligation to file a Statement of Defence.

The court ordered the defendant to deliver a Statement of Defence and Motion Record by June 19, 2020, and set a detailed schedule for the motion, deferring the decision on whether the hearing would be oral or written.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim for breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, and aggravated/punitive damages under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court struck the claims for breach of confidence and aggravated damages with leave to amend, finding that the breach of confidence claim failed to plead misuse to the plaintiff's detriment, and the aggravated damages claim lacked sufficient particulars of the conduct's effects.

The claims for invasion of privacy and punitive damages were not struck, as they were deemed sufficiently pleaded based on the alleged intentional entry into the plaintiff's home and removal of confidential documents.

The applicants, charged with tax evasion under the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act, brought a Charter motion alleging breaches of their sections 7 and 8 rights.

They argued that a CRA auditor improperly used civil audit powers to gather evidence for a criminal investigation.

The court applied the Jarvis predominant purpose test and found the auditor's focus remained on civil tax liability until the file was referred to criminal investigations.

The court did find a section 8 breach because the search warrant did not explicitly authorize a thorough search of seized electronic data storage units.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2), concluding the breach was minor, the officers acted in good faith, and there is a strong societal interest in adjudicating the serious allegations on their merits.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's action, arguing the plaintiff repeatedly failed to pursue arbitration as mandated by court orders and the Condominium Act.

The plaintiff sought to have an arbitrator appointed before dismissal.

The court dismissed the action, struck the notice to arbitrate as time-barred, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants, finding the plaintiff wilfully ignored court orders and limitation periods.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to strike portions of its Status Certificate was left for the parties to resolve.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision regarding its failure to remove goods from premises as required by an agreement of purchase and sale.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the appellant abandoned the goods by refusing multiple opportunities to remove them, that damages were properly calculated based on lost rent, that the respondent did not fail to mitigate damages, and that the respondent was entitled to forfeit a $100,000 holdback due to the breach.

The court rejected arguments that the Commercial Tenancies Act procedures should apply by analogy and found the respondent acted commercially responsibly in selling the goods at public auction.

The creditor brought a motion against three garnishees who failed to respond to notices of garnishment or pay funds into court.

The garnishees actively evaded service of demand letters and did not attend the motion despite having notice.

The court found the garnishees jointly and severally liable to pay the full amount of the debtor's judgment debt of $1,704,228.61 pursuant to Rule 60.08(17) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.