N.C. Tibollo

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of an appeal by Turano’s Home Improvement against a Master’s Report in favour of Zittell.

Zittell, as the successful party, claimed partial indemnity costs of $24,130.61.

Turano’s Home Improvement argued these costs were excessive, proposing $15,000.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, found Zittell’s claimed costs excessive given the non-complex issues and the amount recovered ($39,583.11).

The court fixed costs at $15,000 plus disbursements and HST, totaling $16,756.61, payable by Turano’s Home Improvement.

The plaintiff/appellant, a contractor, appealed a Master's report that found them in breach of contract for deficient renovation work and awarded damages to the defendant/respondent.

The Master found numerous deficiencies, including the use of an unlicensed electrician and safety hazards, leading to a fundamental breach and repudiation of the contract.

The Superior Court reviewed the Master's findings on a palpable and overriding error standard, upholding the Master's conclusions regarding breach of contract, repudiation, and damages, and dismissing the appeal.

The defendants moved to vary a previously granted Mareva injunction that capped restrained assets at $1.6 million, seeking removal of certain real properties from the injunction based on updated valuation evidence.

The plaintiff did not dispute the valuations but raised concerns regarding outstanding mortgages on some properties and sought to restructure the injunction so that it first applied to one defendant’s assets before reaching another’s.

The court accepted evidence that the mortgages were either discharged or easily dischargeable and concluded that the total value of remaining restrained assets exceeded the $1.6 million cap.

The injunction was varied to permit mortgage discharges and to remove specified properties from the schedule while maintaining sufficient assets under restraint.

The plaintiff’s cross-motion to prioritize enforcement against particular defendants’ assets was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought continuation of a Mareva injunction freezing assets in a civil fraud action alleging an international investment scheme involving silicon germanium transactions.

The defendants opposed continuation of the injunction, sought to expunge FINTRAC materials and a U.S. criminal complaint from the motion record, and alternatively requested that the plaintiff post security for the undertaking as to damages.

The court held that hearsay evidence contained in a U.S. criminal complaint was admissible on a motion under Rule 39.01(4) and that the FINTRAC report was properly disclosed through the RCMP and was both relevant and admissible.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, a risk of dissipation of assets, and no material non‑disclosure.

The Mareva injunction was continued and no order for security was imposed.