Michael Jaeger

Following the plaintiff's successful motion and the dismissal of the defendants' motion, the court determined the costs payable to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity basis due to the egregious and delaying conduct of the defendant.

The court found that the defendant's conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding and awarded costs of $11,900, payable personally by the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion to fix costs from previous motions after the trial judge retired, to vary a previous judgment to make funds payable directly to her, and to recover collection costs and costs thrown away.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to terminate a garnishment, arguing the previous judgment was fully satisfied.

The court found the previous judgment was not fully satisfied and dismissed the defendant's motion.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that no limitation period applies to enforcing court orders for costs, and that Rule 59.06 and the court's inherent jurisdiction allowed it to fix the costs of the previous motions.

The defendant was ordered to pay $117,067.49.

The defendants (moving parties) sought an interlocutory injunction against the plaintiffs (responding parties) arising from the termination of a distribution agreement.

The court found that the agreement had been terminated with reasonable notice in August 2015.

The court dismissed the motion for an injunction, holding that the moving parties failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as they delayed over two years in seeking relief and failed to provide a meaningful undertaking as to damages.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the responding parties.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $565,000 in damages against the estate of her deceased former spouse, the plaintiff sought costs.

The court found that the executor of the estate engaged in reprehensible and reckless conduct, advancing groundless defences to harass the plaintiff and dissipate estate assets.

The court ordered the executor to personally pay the plaintiff's costs on a solicitor-client scale, fixed at $141,310 plus disbursements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in a defamation action concerning statements posted on websites operated by the defendant.

They alleged the publications contained defamatory statements relating to family events surrounding the death of a child and sought damages and injunctive relief.

The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because there were genuine issues requiring trial, including publication of the statements, whether the statements were defamatory, and the extent of damages.

However, the court struck portions of the defendant’s statement of defence that disclosed no reasonable defence, including certain claims of responsible communication, fair comment, and volenti non fit injuria.

The court also made a declaration establishing the facts of a prior violent incident involving the parties’ family as not subject to dispute in the action.