Melissa Margaret Hogg

The Plaintiffs' motion for a third inspection was dismissed, leading to this costs endorsement.

The Defendants, having succeeded on the motion, sought partial indemnity costs.

The Plaintiffs argued for "costs in the cause," contending that the motion was premature rather than a final determination of inspection entitlement.

The court, however, found no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event, as the motion was dismissed outright.

The court awarded the Defendants partial indemnity costs of $48,880.70, deeming the amount fair and reasonable given the complexity of the technical issues and the parties' sophistication.

A bank sought to recover approximately USD $5.4 million under guarantees related to credit facilities advanced to a UAE construction entity and alleged that settlement proceeds from unrelated international litigation were fraudulently conveyed to affiliated corporations to defeat its claim.

The plaintiff also sought to add numerous additional corporate and individual defendants, rely on the discoverability doctrine and misnomer exceptions to the Limitations Act, and pierce the corporate veil on the basis of a common enterprise among related companies.

The court held that most proposed defendants could not be added because the claims were statute‑barred and the discoverability doctrine did not apply due to the plaintiff’s lack of diligence in identifying corporate entities earlier in the litigation.

Although one entity was permitted to be added due to misnomer, the court found no fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and declined to pierce the corporate veil, emphasizing the principle of separate corporate personality.

The plaintiff’s claims were dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to stay a civil action on the basis that the dispute was subject to an arbitration agreement under a broker/agent agreement.

The plaintiff argued it was not a party to the arbitration agreement, having signed only a later addendum for limited purposes.

The court applied the principle that where it is arguable a dispute falls within an arbitration agreement, the matter should be referred to arbitration and the arbitral tribunal should determine jurisdiction.

The court found it was arguable that the plaintiff had become a party to the underlying agreement and its arbitration clause through the addendum and its own pleadings alleging breach of that agreement.

The action against the moving defendant was therefore stayed in favour of arbitration.

A former corporate director sought an order requiring the corporation to prepay legal expenses incurred in defending a civil action brought by a shareholder alleging non‑payment of promissory notes and related debt.

The applicant relied on a broad indemnity agreement providing indemnification and advancement of costs incurred by reason of acting as a director or officer.

The court held that, assuming the pleadings to be true, the legal proceedings against the applicant could have arisen from corporate disputes and attempts to force his resignation as chair of the board.

Because the indemnity agreement contemplated advancement of expenses unless bad faith was established and no such finding was made, the applicant was entitled to prepayment of reasonable legal costs subject to later repayment if indemnification was ultimately denied.

Following the dismissal of motions seeking injunctions preventing a retailer from using or disposing of pharmacy and patient information from pharmacies operating in its stores, the court addressed costs.

The moving parties sought substantial indemnity costs or, alternatively, no costs due to alleged improper conduct, public interest considerations, and the asserted novelty of privacy-related issues.

The court rejected those submissions and held that the successful party was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Although the respondent claimed over $113,000, the court reduced the amount due to excessive staffing, high hourly rates, and unwarranted disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable jointly and severally by all unsuccessful parties.

Licensed pharmacists operating pharmacies within retail stores sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the retailer from selling or transferring pharmacy records to third‑party pharmacy operators following the closure of the stores.

The moving parties argued the records belonged to them under the license agreements and that privacy legislation governing personal health information prevented the transfer.

The court held that the agreements clearly provided that customer records belonged to the retailer, though it acknowledged a low‑threshold serious issue regarding the interaction of contractual terms with health‑information legislation.

The court found no irreparable harm because any business losses could be compensated in damages and patient privacy would not be breached under the statutory regime permitting transfer of records to a successor health information custodian.

The balance of convenience favoured allowing the transfers to ensure continuity of patient care.

The motions for injunction were dismissed.