Newton Kar Tai Wong

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a lien against the respondent unit owner for unpaid common expenses.

On the eve of the hearing, the respondent paid the outstanding common expenses and interest, leaving only the issue of legal costs to be resolved.

The condominium sought to include its full legal costs of $56,327.33 in the certificate of lien pursuant to section 85(3) of the Condominium Act.

The court found that the respondent's history of non-payment, her meritless defence and counterclaim, and her failure to make meaningful settlement efforts justified the full amount.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the full $56,327.33 in legal costs.

The defendant, ASG Technologies Group, Inc. (ASG), brought a motion to impose a discovery plan, which the plaintiff, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Manulife), opposed, proposing its own version.

The primary dispute concerned the relevance and proportionality of various document categories requested by each party in a software licensing dispute.

The Master largely rejected Manulife's broad requests for "misconduct documents" and "valuation documents" related to ASG's other customers and internal financial data, finding them overbroad, disproportionate, or not sufficiently supported by the pleadings.

The Master also rejected ASG's requests for documents related to Manulife's internal dealings with its own customers regarding ASG's products.

The court imposed a discovery plan with specific, narrowed categories of documents to be produced and set deadlines for document exchange and examinations for discovery.

The Representative Plaintiffs in a certified class action sought leave to dismiss the action due to a lack of reasonable prospect of success after an expert report undermined their case.

The Defendants did not oppose the dismissal but sought substantial partial indemnity costs for a withdrawn summary judgment motion and for defending the class action.

The Class Proceedings Fund, responsible for adverse costs, argued the Defendants' costs claim was excessive.

The court granted leave to dismiss the action and awarded the Defendants $300,000 in total partial indemnity costs, significantly less than the $750,025.31 sought by the Defendants but more than the $65,000 proposed by the Fund.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's Rule 21 motion, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the motion was ill-conceived.

The court held that while the motion was premised on an erroneous view of the law, the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $9,500.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) seeking an order for the payment of a volume bonus commission prior to trial in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff sought leave to introduce extensive affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the interpretation of the employment agreement in light of alleged code of conduct breaches raised a question of mixed fact and law, not a pure question of law.

The court noted the motion was effectively an improper attempt to bypass the procedural requirements of a Rule 20 summary judgment motion, including mandatory attendance at Civil Practice Court, and warned against the risks of partial summary judgment.

The plaintiff, having been wholly successful at a three-day trial, sought costs.

The plaintiff had served a Rule 49 offer to settle that was less than the damages awarded at trial.

The defendants failed to provide costs submissions.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, totaling $36,102.54.

The court also ordered the release of $23,000 previously paid into court by the plaintiff as security for costs.

A commercial landlord sued a tenant and indemnifier for unpaid rent after the tenant abandoned leased industrial premises before the end of a fixed‑term lease.

The tenant alleged fundamental breach by the landlord based on inadequate security following multiple break‑ins and failure to pay a tenant improvement allowance, and counterclaimed for alleged lost business profits.

The court held the landlord had no contractual obligation to enhance security measures within the tenant’s premises and had fulfilled its obligations under the lease, including payment of the inducement once conditions were met.

The tenant’s abandonment constituted a clear breach of the lease, and the landlord had taken reasonable steps to mitigate its damages by re‑leasing the premises.

The counterclaim for speculative business losses was dismissed for lack of evidentiary support and absence of landlord negligence.

The appellant bean sprout producer sued a public health inspector for negligence and defamation following a salmonella outbreak investigation that led to a product recall.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding the inspector was protected by statutory immunity under s. 95(1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act and there was no evidence of bad faith.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the appellant failed to provide any evidence of bad faith, recklessness, or gross negligence to displace the statutory immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three procedural issues.

First, it ordered the applicant to produce travel documents relevant to the mitigation of damages.

Second, it denied the applicant's request to alter the order of proceedings to have the respondent present its case before the applicant's medical witnesses.

Third, it directed the respondent to provide detailed witness statements in compliance with the Tribunal's Rules.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing and a seven-week extension of time to file hearing materials, citing the need to review newly disclosed documents.

The applicant consented to a brief extension but opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the hearing, but granted a brief extension of time for the respondent to file its materials.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order regarding the care of and access to an incapable person for whom she acted as attorney for property and personal care.

The appellant abandoned arguments regarding deficient service of the cross-motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's findings of fact, noting the focus was properly on the interests of the incapable person rather than the appellant.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the motion judge and noting that the appellants' failure to appeal a prior order provided a complete answer to their position.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their counterclaim against a bank manager personally.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no evidence that the manager acted outside the course and scope of his employment with the bank, a position confirmed by the bank itself.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.