Michael David Eric Fleischmann

Following a successful application and counter‑application concerning a boundary dispute between neighbouring properties, the successful parties sought full indemnity costs exceeding $82,000 plus disbursements.

The court held that full or substantial indemnity costs are exceptional and generally require reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct, which was not present.

The dispute concerned a narrow strip of land and was neither legally nor factually complex.

The court also found the claimed hourly rates and time spent excessive and disproportionate to the issues involved.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 plus disbursements and applicable taxes.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment on a mortgage, the plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity basis pursuant to the mortgage terms.

The defendant, who was self-represented, declined to provide submissions on costs despite being given the opportunity by the court.

The court considered the legal complexity of the defences raised and the contractual provision providing for substantial indemnity costs.

The court held the amount claimed by the plaintiff was appropriate and ordered the defendant to pay costs in the amount sought.

The parties brought competing motions for summary judgment arising from an oil spill at a residential property allegedly caused when falling ice and debris severed an outdoor fuel oil line connected to a tank installed by one defendant and later visually inspected by another.

The plaintiff alleged negligent installation and inspection in breach of regulatory standards requiring protection of fuel lines from physical damage.

The defendants argued the event was unforeseeable and resulted from the collapse of building components for which the homeowner was responsible.

The court held that the case involved conflicting expert opinions regarding the standard of care and causation.

Applying the “full appreciation test” articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court concluded that the dispute required the trial process to properly evaluate the competing expert evidence.

The parties brought competing motions for summary judgment arising from an oil spill at a residential property allegedly caused when falling ice and debris severed an outdoor fuel oil line connected to a tank installed by one defendant and later visually inspected by another.

The plaintiff alleged negligent installation and inspection in breach of regulatory standards requiring protection of fuel lines from physical damage.

The defendants argued the event was unforeseeable and resulted from the collapse of building components for which the homeowner was responsible.

The court held that the case involved conflicting expert opinions regarding the standard of care and causation.

Applying the “full appreciation test” articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court concluded that the dispute required the trial process to properly evaluate the competing expert evidence.