M. Jaeger

Following a jury verdict in a defamation and intrusion upon seclusion action, the plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a Sanderson order requiring the unsuccessful defendant to pay the costs previously awarded to two successful co-defendants who had been dismissed on summary judgment.

The court considered the governing test from Moore (Litigation Guardian of) v. Wienecke and found the threshold requirement was not met because the plaintiffs had no evidentiary basis to join the successful defendants when the action was commenced.

The court further held that even if the threshold were met, a Sanderson order would not be appropriate given the risk that the unsuccessful defendant lacked the means to satisfy the costs award.

However, relying on prior findings that the unsuccessful defendant had ensnared the successful defendants in the litigation, the court granted a Bullock order permitting the plaintiffs to recover from that defendant the costs previously awarded to the successful defendants.

Costs of the motion were awarded against the plaintiffs.

Following a multi‑action civil trial arising from failed investment schemes, the plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after obtaining findings of fraud and fraudulent conveyance against the principal defendant.

The defendants had consented to judgment for the principal investment amounts but contested interest and liability for fraud.

The court had found that the principal defendant committed fraud and that he and his spouse fraudulently conveyed their home to defeat creditors.

Considering the sanctionable conduct of the defendants and the principles governing elevated costs, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The court ordered costs of $92,267.75 and apportioned partial responsibility to one defendant for the fraudulent conveyance portion of the litigation.

Multiple plaintiffs brought civil actions arising from investments made with the principal defendant and related corporations that promised guaranteed monthly returns from foreign exchange trading.

The court found that the defendant misappropriated investor funds, used them for personal expenses and charitable donations, and provided false account statements while concealing losses.

The evidence established a fraudulent scheme in which investor funds were pooled and diverted without authorization, resulting in significant losses.

The court further found that the transfer of the defendant’s home to his spouse occurred with the intent to defeat creditors and therefore contravened the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiffs including contractual interest, the conveyance of the property was declared void, and the claims against the spouse were dismissed for lack of evidence of involvement.

Following the dismissal of a motion for partial summary judgment, the court determined the issue of costs after written submissions.

The moving party had argued that the opposing party lacked an evidentiary basis for its damages claim.

The court found the motion had been reasonably brought but concluded that the factual nature of the dispute and the wording of the agreements rendered the motion premature.

Costs were awarded to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $12,500 inclusive, payable in the cause as determined by the trial judge.

The moving party sought partial summary judgment for payment of $144,000 under a promissory note issued pursuant to a share purchase agreement and related non‑competition, non‑solicitation, and non‑disclosure agreements.

The responding party argued that the note was subject to the broader contractual framework and that the moving party had breached the restrictive covenants.

Evidence suggested the moving party may have assisted a competing company and facilitated the movement of employees and customers during the restricted period.

The court held that these allegations created genuine triable issues and that the evidentiary record did not permit the full appreciation required for summary judgment under Rule 20.04 and the test articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed.