Mike Cremasco

This is a final costs endorsement following a motion by the plaintiff, Waugh, to enforce an undertaking.

The court reviewed submissions regarding the requirement for leave to bring the motion, noting that a prior judge had scheduled the motion despite a leave requirement and that counsel for Bentworth had not objected on this basis until later.

The court found it unfair to impose substantial indemnity costs on Waugh and ordered Waugh to pay partial indemnity costs of $14,000 plus HST to Bentworth Outdoor Storage Inc. and Hy Hershberg.

No costs were awarded to Pinckard as she did not appear.

The plaintiff was unsuccessful on a motion.

The court determined that the plaintiff should pay at least partial indemnity costs of $14,000 plus HST.

However, a previous order required the plaintiff to obtain leave before bringing any further motions.

The court deferred finalizing the costs order, requesting clear evidence from counsel as to whether the plaintiff had advised the court of the leave requirement and obtained leave, noting that if leave was not obtained, substantial indemnity costs of $21,000 plus HST would be ordered.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a declaration that the defendants breached an undertaking given to the court regarding the removal of his stored goods, and sought damages of $180,963.

The court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including whether the undertaking bound the corporate defendant, the scope of the undertaking, and whether it was breached.

The court held that granting the requested relief summarily would be inappropriate, risk inconsistent findings, and fail to advance the litigation as a whole.

The motion was dismissed.

The City of Hamilton commenced an action against Daimler Trucks North America LLC and Wajax Industries Limited for damages arising from a truck fire.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred due to the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The court found that the City of Hamilton knew or ought to have known of its claim by November 12, 2010, at the latest, and failed to exercise reasonable diligence in acquiring material facts.

Consequently, the claim, commenced on February 19, 2013, was statute-barred.

The defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

The defendants brought a motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's action due to outstanding costs awards.

The court stayed the action for six months, allowing the plaintiff time to satisfy the costs or obtain a judicial order varying them.

The court found the plaintiff's financial evidence insufficient but granted a final opportunity before allowing the defendants to renew their motion for dismissal.

The plaintiff brought an action against 39 defendants, including lawyers, police officers, and private investigators, seeking $20 million in damages for various torts including abuse of process, negligent investigation, and conspiracy.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court found the action was a collateral attack on previous court orders finding the plaintiff in contempt of court.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and alternatively struck the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Substantial costs were awarded to the defendants.