M. Milosevic

CPI Security Services Inc. (CPI) brought a motion for costs after 2465855 Ontario Ltd. o/a The Westin Prince, Toronto (Westin) accepted CPI's Rule 49 offer to settle but then defaulted on payment and costs.

CPI sought $54,121.12 in costs.

The court fixed CPI's costs of the action on a partial indemnity basis and costs of enforcing the settlement on a substantial indemnity basis, totaling $47,037.30.

The court found Westin's general claims of COVID-19 financial impact insufficient to justify default and noted Westin's lack of communication.

The court also reduced CPI's claimed costs for undertakings and pre-trial preparation, deeming them excessive.

The defendant successfully moved to reduce the plaintiff's construction lien on the basis that it was wilfully exaggerated.

The parties could not agree on costs for the motion.

The court awarded the defendant costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the plaintiff's conduct in wilfully exaggerating the lien warranted a higher scale of costs to deter such practices in the construction community.

Costs were fixed at $34,500.

The defendant moved to discharge the plaintiff's construction lien under section 47 of the Construction Act, arguing it was wilfully exaggerated and an abuse of process.

The lien related to biohazard remediation services following a death at the property.

The court found insufficient evidence to summarily discharge the lien as an abuse of process, noting triable issues regarding the agreed scope of work.

However, the court found that portions of the lien were wilfully exaggerated, including unsubstantiated labour hours and opportunistic billing increases.

The court reduced the lien amount by $48,041.80 pursuant to section 35 of the Construction Act.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing its action for copyright infringement against the respondent, a former employee of a hotel.

The appellant claimed ownership of a logo used by the hotel and alleged the respondent infringed its copyright by using the logo in a website redesign and new signage.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that ownership of the logo had transferred to the hotel operator and that the respondent was not liable as she acted in the course of her employment.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the costs award, finding the trial judge erred in principle by awarding $4,250 to a self-represented litigant.

The costs award was reduced to $1,550.