M. Holervich

In a standalone costs decision following a refusals motion and an abuse of process motion, the court assessed entitlement and quantum under Rule 57.01.

The moving parties were found to have been largely successful on the refusals motion and wholly successful on the abuse of process motion that resulted in dismissal of a duplicative application.

The responding parties disputed costs submissions but did not challenge rates or time through a responding bill of costs or costs outline.

Applying proportionality and the Rule 57.01 factors, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 60 days.

The plaintiff, Wilderness North Air, was awarded a contract by Hydro One Remote Communities Inc. (Remotes) to be the primary vendor for the delivery of diesel fuel by air to five remote First Nations communities.

After the contract was awarded, several First Nations communities issued Band Council Resolutions (BCRs) stating they would only accept fuel delivered by Wasaya Airways, a First Nations-owned airline that had been unsuccessful in the bidding process.

Remotes subsequently cancelled Wilderness's purchase orders for four of the communities and awarded the work to Wasaya and another carrier.

Wilderness sued Remotes for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith, and sued Wasaya for inducing breach of contract.

The Superior Court of Justice found that Remotes breached the contract and its duty of good faith, and that Wasaya induced the breach.

Wilderness was awarded $2,718,988 in damages, with Wasaya jointly and severally liable for $856,458.

The applicant and one of the respondents, siblings and co-estate trustees, sought directions on six issues regarding the administration of their mother's estate.

The court denied requests to have the estate pay the trustees' legal fees, finding the litigation was personal and adversarial.

The court also resolved disputes over rent-free occupation of estate property, an estate vehicle, and a loan.

Finally, the court awarded $25,000 in total executor compensation, split equally between the two trustees, noting their poor cooperation and the excessive time taken to administer the estate.

The court determined the costs of an application to wind-up two corporations and a related action, following years of protracted and bitter litigation.

The applicants were largely successful and sought enhanced costs, including against a non-party shareholder.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs for several motions due to the respondents' vexatious and obstructive conduct.

The court also awarded costs to a self-represented litigant for time spent performing work ordinarily done by a lawyer.

The non-party shareholder was held jointly and severally liable for a portion of the costs in the action due to her unreasonable refusal of settlement offers.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' motion for an interlocutory injunction under the oppression provisions of the Business Corporations Act, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicants argued they were justified in bringing the motion and sought their own costs despite being unsuccessful.

The court rejected this argument, finding no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The court awarded the successful respondents their costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $2,750 for fees plus HST and $175.56 for disbursements.

The applicant, an estate trustee, sought costs following a successful motion for directions regarding the sale of an estate property to the respondent beneficiaries.

The court applied the modern approach to estate litigation costs, emphasizing the 'loser pays' principle to discourage treating the estate as an ATM for litigation.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $3,500 payable by the respondents, and a further $5,000 payable by the estate to fully indemnify her reasonable costs as trustee.

At a status hearing, the court considered whether to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay under Rule 48.14(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, which involved a shareholder dispute, had been commenced in 2012 and was inextricably linked to a separate application to wind up the corporations.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, having made a strategic decision to await the outcome of the application before proceeding with the action.

Finding that the defendants would suffer prejudice if the action proceeded, the court dismissed the action for delay.