Mina Ghabryal

The applicant sought costs following his successful defense against the respondent's motion for financial disclosure and his successful cross-motion.

The court found the applicant behaved reasonably and met his disclosure obligations, while the respondent's conduct was unreasonable, overbroad, and akin to a fishing expedition.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $16,608.55, representing 75% of his actual costs, payable by the respondent at a rate of $1,000 per month.

The defendants successfully moved to set aside a noting in default and default judgment in a construction lien action.

The parties could not agree on costs and filed written submissions.

The court found that the plaintiff ought to have consented to the motion, as its likelihood of success was very high.

Applying a notional set-off approach, the court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs of $6,924.74, minus $2,000 for the plaintiff's costs thrown away, resulting in a net costs award of $4,900 payable by the plaintiff.

The moving party defendant, a co-owner of a residential property, sought an order for partition and sale under the Partition Act.

The responding parties opposed the motion, arguing the moving party had already extracted her share of equity through a unilateral mortgage refinancing and had unclean hands.

The court granted the motion, finding that the discretion to refuse partition and sale is strictly limited to cases of malice, oppression, or vexatious intent, which were not established here.

The court ordered the property sold and the net proceeds paid into court pending the resolution of the underlying accounting action.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and default judgment entered against them in a construction lien dispute.

The court found that the motion was brought without delay, there was an adequate explanation for the default (including travel abroad, language barriers, and a COVID-19 hospitalization), and there was an arguable defence on the merits.

The court concluded that the interests of justice favoured setting aside the default judgment, noting that the plaintiff was protected by funds already paid into court.