Michael B. Stanton

This costs decision addresses the aftermath of a motion/application in which the applicants sought to convert an application to an action, amend parties, and obtain interim relief regarding property.

The court declined to fix costs for the entire application, limiting its award to the motion before it.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) was awarded partial indemnity costs, while no costs were awarded as between the applicants and the Quddus respondents due to mixed success.

The decision reviews the principles governing costs, including the principle of indemnity, reasonableness, and the impact of consent adjournments.

The applicants sought to convert an application to an action and amend their pleadings to include claims for misappropriation, a tracing order, a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), punitive damages, and negligence against CIBC's lawyer.

The court granted the conversion to an action (by agreement) and allowed the claims for misappropriation and tracing, finding they arose from existing factual allegations.

However, the court denied adding Zinnatus Salam as a plaintiff due to duplicative proceedings, dismissed the motion for an immediate CPL (though allowed the claim to be pleaded), and rejected claims for punitive damages and negligence against CIBC's lawyer, deeming them new, statute-barred causes of action or lacking factual basis.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in a dispute concerning guardian contracts for dogs.

The plaintiff, a dog breeder, had obtained default judgment for breach of contract and return of dogs/puppies.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding they moved promptly, had a plausible explanation for the default (misunderstanding regarding notice from plaintiff's counsel), and presented an arguable defence on the merits.

The court emphasized the preference for resolving disputes on their merits and the importance of professional courtesy among counsel, particularly regarding default proceedings.

The applicant sought to pass his accounts for the estate of his late mother.

The respondent raised numerous objections, asserting that a trial was necessary due to conflicting evidence and incomplete records regarding estate assets, including a family business, household contents, and a bank account.

The court, applying Rule 74.18(13.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, determined that a fair decision could not be made on the paper record and directed a trial on the unresolved issues.

Specific directions were given for joint retention of valuators for the business and property contents, and for trial procedures.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in an action for breach of an unconditional agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendants failed to close the transaction, citing an alleged dramatic drop in the real estate market and invoking doctrines of frustration, impossibility, and force majeure.

The court granted partial summary judgment, declaring the defendants breached the contract, but found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the quantification of damages, specifically concerning the plaintiffs' mitigation efforts and the establishment of the property's market value at the time of breach.

The self-represented appellant moved to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal sitting in chambers.

The chambers judge had validated service of the respondent's certificate, directed that all trial evidence was necessary for the appeal, and required the appellant to order the transcripts.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding that the transcripts were indeed necessary for a full and fair hearing, but extended the deadline for the appellant to order them.