Michael John Arthur Beeson

This costs decision follows a motor vehicle collision case in which the plaintiff, Ronald Busch, suffered serious injuries and sued the defendant, Cristy Mitton.

Mitton brought a third-party claim against the Ministry of Transportation for Ontario and Carillion Canada Inc. The main action settled for $210,000 plus interest, with costs to be determined.

The court found the Ministry's refusal to accept the settlement as reasonable to be entirely unreasonable, resulting in additional costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $282,251.79 in costs and the third parties $155,739.31, with reductions applied due to lack of evidence of actual legal rates charged.

The decision clarifies the approach to costs where third-party claims and late settlements are involved.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an application where Mostofa Miah, operating Mia's Indian Cuisine, successfully obtained injunctive relief and a declaration that his lease and lease extension agreement were valid against his landlord, 1000087635 Ontario Inc. The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to Miah, finding that the landlord's conduct throughout the litigation, including asserting a non-existent lease invalidity, making unfounded accusations, and engaging in dilatory tactics, warranted an elevated costs award.

The applicant sought a declaration that a right of first refusal (ROFR) on her property was extinguished and an order for its removal from title.

The ROFR was triggered by a third-party offer, which the respondent exercised but then failed to complete.

The court interpreted the ROFR clause and common law principles, concluding that the ROFR was extinguished once exercised, even if the transaction was not completed, as the clause did not provide for reinstatement in such circumstances.

The application was granted, and the ROFR was ordered removed from title.

The moving party brought an urgent motion for the production of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) under Rule 30.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was referred to in the responding party's affidavits.

The underlying application sought to extinguish a right of first refusal held by the moving party.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the APS was not incorporated by reference into the affidavits.

Furthermore, the court exercised its discretion to deny production, concluding the APS was not relevant to the core issue of the application and its disclosure could prejudice the responding party due to commercial sensitivity.

The Caisse Populaire de North Bay Limitée moved for summary judgment seeking possession of a mortgaged property due to default on two mortgages and dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim alleging oppressive conduct.

The defendant, Christi-Anne Marie Lafrance, disputed the validity and amounts of the mortgages, arguing they were stayed or discharged by her bankruptcy, and that the Caisse engaged in oppressive conduct.

The court granted leave to amend the plaintiff's name to Caisse Populaire Alliance Limitée, granted summary judgment on the Caisse's claim, and dismissed the counterclaim, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The court clarified that secured debts are not stayed or discharged by bankruptcy if the debtor continues to benefit from the contract.

The plaintiff, Jennifer Horrocks, brought an ex parte motion for leave to register certificates of pending litigation against properties sold by the defendant, Bruce McConville, and related corporate entities.

The plaintiff alleged these sales were fraudulent conveyances designed to defeat her family law claims for equalization and support.

The court granted the motion, finding a high probability of the plaintiff recovering judgment in the main family law action, sufficient evidence of intent to defeat creditors based on several 'badges of fraud,' and that the balance of convenience favored issuing the certificates to prevent further disposition of assets to bona fide purchasers without notice.

The moving parties brought a motion to extend the time to oppose the confirmation of an assessment officer's report and to set it aside.

They had failed to attend the assessment hearing, claiming they misunderstood the purpose of a prior adjournment.

The court found their excuse weak but noted they acted promptly upon learning of the assessment.

Because there was a genuine issue regarding whether the moving parties had actually retained the respondent law firm prior to signing a written retainer, the court set aside the unopposed certificate of assessment and remitted the matter back to the Assessment Officer.

The moving parties were ordered to pay $5,000 in costs due to their default.

Following a motion in a simplified procedure action involving a claim for corporate oppression and production of documents, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party had largely succeeded on the underlying motion, including obtaining leave to amend the statement of claim to add an oppression remedy under the Canada Business Corporations Act and compelling answers to undertakings and production of financial records.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered complexity, proportionality, success, conduct of the parties, and the time and rates claimed.

The court held that the success on the motion justified an award of costs, but that the conduct alleged did not warrant elevated costs.

Costs were therefore fixed on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff brought a motion in a simplified procedure action seeking leave to amend the statement of claim to add an oppression claim under s. 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, and to compel answers to undertakings and production of corporate records.

The court held that an oppression claim could be advanced within a Rule 76 simplified action and granted leave to amend the claim.

However, the court limited document production to records relevant to payments, financial statements, bank records, and financing related to the defendant corporation.

Production requests relating to an affiliated corporation were largely refused as irrelevant.

The court also ordered responses to certain discovery undertakings concerning payments to specific individuals and imposed limits on further discovery.