M. Singh

This endorsement addresses a costs ruling following successful summary judgment motions.

The defendants, as moving parties for costs, sought $70,000 in partial indemnity costs in each of two proceedings.

The plaintiffs, as responding parties, argued against the award, citing lack of notice regarding certain claims and the potential impediment to their ongoing litigation against other defendants.

The court granted the defendants the full requested costs, totaling $140,000, finding that the defendants were entirely successful, their offer to settle was generous, the allegations against them were serious, and the amount sought was reasonable.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' arguments against the costs award.

This case concerns a motion by the Crown and the Ministry of Children, Community, and Social Services to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus application brought by a youth accused of murder, M.J. M.J. was initially detained in an open custody facility, then transferred to a secure facility to facilitate an in-person bail review.

After being released on bail, M.J. continued her habeas corpus application, seeking Charter costs and damages for alleged unlawful detention.

The court granted the summary dismissal, finding that habeas corpus is not available for a person no longer detained and that claims for Charter damages and compensation should be pursued in civil courts, not joined with criminal habeas corpus applications.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, emphasizing judicial economy and the proper function of criminal courts.

The moving parties, including the Crown and two police officers, sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' actions for negligent investigation, intentional infliction of mental harm, and civil conspiracy.

The plaintiffs' claims arose from a police investigation into alleged sexual assaults by two minor plaintiffs, which resulted in criminal charges that were later stayed after the minors completed counselling.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the criminal proceedings were not terminated in favour of the plaintiffs, the police had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges, and there was no evidence supporting the other tort claims.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claims against the moving parties were dismissed.

Mario Rodriguez brought an application under Charter section 11(b) for a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to a trial within a reasonable time was infringed.

The total delay exceeded the 18-month Jordan ceiling by 56 days.

The Crown argued for three periods of defence delay to be deducted.

The court found 65 days of delay attributable to defence counsel's inefficiency in setting trial dates, reducing the net delay below the 18-month ceiling.

The application for a stay of proceedings was denied.

The defendant moved without notice for default judgment on its counterclaim after the plaintiff failed to defend and its claim was struck.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the relief sought in the draft judgment (declarations regarding property and assets) did not match the prayer for relief in the counterclaim (damages).

The court granted the defendant leave to amend its counterclaim but ordered no further steps be taken without court order due to ongoing case management of related bankruptcy proceedings.

The defendant was wholly successful on a motion to set aside a default judgment and sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff failed to provide written submissions on costs.

The court considered the defendant's offer to settle the motion on a no-costs basis, which the plaintiff rejected.

Finding the hours claimed by the defendant disproportionate to the straightforward nature of the motion, the court fixed costs at $11,620.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The moving party brought a motion to remove the responding party's counsel due to a prior retainer.

The responding party consented to the order on the day the motion was to be heard.

The court found that the motion was necessary and that substantial indemnity costs would normally follow, but reduced the claimed amount on the basis of proportionality, fixing costs at $3,500 plus HST and disbursements.

The moving parties, HGR, sought an order for the trial together of an employment action and a related solicitor negligence action, along with common documentary and oral discoveries.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, primarily on grounds of solicitor-client privilege.

The court granted the order for trial together, finding common questions of fact and law, overlapping damages, and a significant risk of inconsistent judicial findings if the actions were tried separately.

However, the request for common discoveries was dismissed due to insufficient evidence to determine waiver of solicitor-client privilege, emphasizing the court's duty to protect such privilege.

The court determined the costs of four motions, including motions to amend the statement of claim and for trial together with a related action.

The court found that the costs of the amendment motions should be in the cause, as they would have been incurred in any event and the defendants did not unreasonably oppose them.

For the motions for trial together, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs, as the relief was mutually beneficial and neither side substantively opposed the other's motion.

The court heard four procedural motions, including motions for trial together, transfer of a Small Claims Court action, and leave to amend pleadings.

The parties reached an agreement on most issues prior to the hearing.

The court ordered that this action and a related action be tried together with common discoveries, and granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim.

The motion to transfer the Small Claims Court action was adjourned to be heard by a judge, as a Master lacks jurisdiction under section 107 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The decision on a separate motion for trial together by another set of defendants was reserved.

The defendants brought a motion seeking payment of costs from a successful summary judgment motion, an order to strike the plaintiff's defence to their counterclaim if costs were not paid, and a stay of the plaintiff's pending summary judgment motion.

The Master dismissed the defendants' motion, finding no jurisdiction to stay a judge's order and determining that the defendants' arguments regarding the enforceability of costs were not without merit, but ultimately unsuccessful.

As the successful party on the motion, the plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to pay a $40,000 costs award, which was granted following a successful summary judgment motion, and to strike the plaintiff's defence to counterclaim if payment was not made.

They also sought to stay the plaintiff's pending summary judgment motion against their counterclaim.

The court lacked jurisdiction to stay the plaintiff's summary judgment motion.

The primary issue was whether the costs award was automatically stayed under Rule 63.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, given a pending appeal of the underlying summary judgment on the merits.

The court found the costs award inextricably connected to the judgment under appeal and thus captured by the automatic stay.

Alternatively, the court found the costs award stayed by the plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal costs in the Court of Appeal.

The defendants' motion was dismissed.

The court determined the fair market value of the applicant's shares and the costs of the proceeding following a successful oppression application.

The court rejected the respondents' liquidation approach to valuation, preferring a going-concern adjusted book value approach, and fixed the share value at $668,674.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the applicant and counter-respondents, citing the respondents' incivility, excessive posturing, and unfounded allegations of fraud.

The applicants brought a motion regarding the respondent estate trustee's alleged failure to comply with a previous court order.

The court found that the respondent's responding affidavit, sworn by a paralegal, did not adequately address the concerns raised by the applicants.

The court ordered the respondent to serve and file a further affidavit with supporting documentary evidence and adjourned the motion to allow for a complete evidentiary record before determining the substantive relief requested.

A residential home builder commenced an action to recover unpaid amounts under a construction contract and enforce a construction lien.

The homeowners argued that the governing contract price was an earlier quotation and that omitted items generated credits reducing the contract value, and they counterclaimed for deficiencies.

The court found that the binding agreement was the written contract executed by the homeowners after construction commenced, setting the contract price at $725,000 inclusive of GST.

The court rejected the homeowners’ interpretation that “omit” items created credits and held there was no documentary evidence supporting such a claim.

The construction lien was also found to have been registered within the statutory 45‑day period under the Construction Lien Act.

Judgment was granted to the builder subject to a modest deduction for proven deficiencies.