Mitchell B. Rosenblatt

This costs decision followed a trial in which the plaintiff recovered judgment against one defendant for unpaid invoices arising from labour and materials supplied to convert industrial premises into a licensed cannabis-growing facility.

The court considered whether the plaintiff's recoverable costs against the unsuccessful defendant should include a contribution toward the costs payable to the owner defendant and related disbursements incurred when the plaintiff had also proceeded against that owner.

Applying the general principles that costs follow the event and must be fair and reasonable, the court held the plaintiff had acted reasonably in suing the owner to protect its position and that those additional costs were caused by the unsuccessful defendant's unjustified refusal to pay the invoices.

Costs were fixed at $58,035.21 payable by the unsuccessful defendant to the plaintiff, and at $14,214.48 payable by the plaintiff to the owner defendant.

The plaintiff acted as an agent in Korea for the defendant.

After their relationship deteriorated, the parties signed a Payment Agreement acknowledging outstanding commissions owed to the plaintiff.

The defendant partially paid but then ceased payments.

The plaintiff sued for the remaining balance.

The court found the Payment Agreement to be a binding contract and awarded the plaintiff USD $232,330.44.

The defendant's counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of damages.

The court limited pre-judgment interest to three years due to the plaintiff's unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendants for unpaid invoices totaling over $347,000 for labour and materials supplied to renovate a commercial space into a licensed cannabis-growing facility.

The defendants argued the work was deficient, claiming charge-backs, and asserted the parties had agreed to a fixed quote of $350,000.

The court found the plaintiff met its onus to prove entitlement to the invoiced amounts and dismissed the defendants' claims, noting a complete lack of documentary evidence to support the alleged deficiencies or the existence of a fixed quote agreement.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff in the amount of $347,020.40 plus prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from blocking access to a laneway on lands owned by the plaintiff.

The defendants cross-moved for an injunction preventing the plaintiff from using the lands, claiming they had acquired title by adverse possession.

The court found the defendants failed to establish a strong prima facie case of adverse possession, as they could not show the true owner was excluded for the requisite 10-year period prior to the lands being converted to Land Titles.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, ordering the defendants to remove gravel blocking the laneway, and dismissed the defendants' cross-motion.

The applicant brought a motion regarding an unpaid equalization payment and sought a preliminary order that the respondent was not entitled to further relief due to his ongoing breach of a 2008 child support order.

The respondent had accumulated approximately $300,000 in child support arrears, claiming his obligation ended due to estrangement from the children, though he never sought to vary the order.

Applying the three-stage test for Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court declined to exercise discretion in the respondent's favour.

The court ordered that the respondent's motion be dismissed unless he pays the arrears accumulated up to the children's 18th birthdays and commences a Motion to Change within 60 days.

The appellant mother appealed an order made following a finding of contempt against her for failing to comply with a child access schedule.

The motion judge had ordered the appellant to purge her contempt by transferring 122 days of access to the respondent father over a two-year period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order, finding that the motion judge failed to adequately consider the best interests of the children when making such a substantial change to the custodial arrangements.

The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

Following an appeal where success was divided, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement ordering that each party bear their own costs.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment awarding custody of the parties' child to the respondent mother, along with spousal support, child support based on imputed income, and an equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the custody and equalization orders, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the Court set aside the spousal support award due to a lack of evidence of economic disadvantage, and reduced the child support obligation, finding no evidentiary basis to impute income to the appellant.

The appellant mother appealed an order granting joint custody of the parties' six-year-old daughter and denying her request to relocate to Australia with the child.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge's findings of a de facto shared parenting arrangement and effective communication between the parents were supported by the evidence.

The court also upheld the finding that a move to Australia would disrupt the child's life and relationship with the respondent father without providing any real benefit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant breached a franchise agreement by granting a territory to a third party.

The respondent elected to continue the agreement but sued for damages.

The trial judge awarded damages for lost profits, return of royalties, wasted advertising expenses, return of the licensing fee, and punitive damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the awards for lost profits, royalties, licensing fee, and punitive damages due to lack of proof and misapprehension of evidence.

The award for wasted advertising expenses was reduced to $36,000.