Osborne Godfrey Barnwell

The applicant requested a case management conference to seek a brief adjournment three days before the scheduled hearing, intending to introduce further materials on the issue of anti-black racism.

The responding parties did not consent.

The case management judge declined to convene a conference at this late stage, noting the matter had been pending for almost two years.

The applicant was permitted to bring a formal motion for an adjournment before the hearing panel.

The proposed intervenor brought a motion to reconsider a decision denying him leave to intervene as a party in a pending application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court found no error in the conclusion or reasoning of the motion judge and dismissed the motion to reconsider.

A case management conference was held to schedule a review of a single judge's decision denying a proposed intervener's motion for leave to intervene as a party.

The parties agreed that the review would be heard in writing by a panel of the Divisional Court, and a schedule for the exchange of materials was established.

A case management conference was held to schedule the hearing of the application following the denial of a motion for leave to intervene.

The court directed that the application proceed by ZOOM videoconference on July 31, 2020, and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

This is a costs endorsement following a judgment concerning the division of a business enterprise operating two medical schools.

The Applicants sought partial indemnity costs for legal proceedings in Ontario and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

The Respondents sought full indemnity costs against the Applicants and requested the judge's recusal due to alleged bias.

The court dismissed the recusal request, found no basis for costs against Applicants' counsel, and declined to award costs for St. Vincent and the Grenadines counsel due to lack of evidence.

The Applicants were largely successful in the main application, securing a monitor, injunctive relief, and an interim disbursement.

The court awarded the Applicants $85,000 in partial indemnity costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff sued her plastic surgeon for negligence, alleging lack of informed consent for a breast reduction surgery.

She claimed the surgeon failed to disclose the material risk of fat necrosis, which was elevated due to her obesity and smoking, and which she subsequently suffered.

The court found that while the surgeon did not specifically disclose the risk of fat necrosis, and should have, the plaintiff failed to establish causation.

Applying a modified objective test, the court concluded that both the plaintiff and a reasonable person in her circumstances would have proceeded with the elective surgery due to significant and persistent back pain, despite the very low, albeit material, risk.

Therefore, the surgeon was not held liable for damages.

The applicant, widow and estate trustee of a deceased business partner, brought an application against the surviving partner regarding the division of their jointly owned medical schools in the Caribbean.

The applicant sought the appointment of a monitor, an injunction preventing the respondent from operating a competing medical school, and damages for oppression and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found it had jurisdiction as the respondent waived the arbitration clause by participating in the litigation.

The court appointed a monitor to oversee the complex financial separation, granted an interim injunction restricting the respondent's competing university from poaching staff and students, and converted the application into an action due to significant factual disputes.

The applicant, a care facility operator, brought an application seeking declarations that the respondent County acted in bad faith by not renewing their annual services agreement under the Domiciliary Care Program.

The County had declined to renew the fixed-term contract due to a history of non-compliance, particularly regarding Fire Code violations and the delayed installation of a sprinkler system.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the contract had a clear end date with no automatic renewal clause, and therefore the County owed no duty of good faith to renew it.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence of bad faith, noting that the County had repeatedly communicated its concerns and provided reasons for non-renewal despite having no contractual obligation to do so.

The third party brought a motion for default judgment on its counterclaim against the defendants, while the defendants brought a motion declaring the counterclaim improper.

The parties resolved the substantive issues on consent but could not agree on costs.

The court reviewed the conduct of both parties, noting the third party's premature noting in default and the defendants' failure to retain counsel promptly.

The court concluded that both parties bore some responsibility for the costs incurred and ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicants challenged the authority of the respondent corporation's de facto Chief Operating Officer to retain legal counsel to represent the corporation in an oppression and receivership application.

The court found that although the COO was not formally appointed in accordance with the shareholders agreement, she was informally appointed by the late controlling director in good faith.

The court held that as the de facto COO, she had the authority to appoint counsel to represent the corporation's interests.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiff's counsel was censured for re-arguing the merits in costs submissions.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $30,000 to the defendants, a reduction from their requested $34,417.02, primarily due to the plaintiff's impecuniosity.

The decision balanced the defendants' right to costs with the plaintiff's access to justice.

The plaintiff, Dale James, brought a motion for summary judgment against the Peel Regional Police Services Board and four police officers, alleging unlawful arrest, detention, harassment, and Charter breaches.

The claims stemmed from an arrest for breach of recognizance based on outdated CPIC information and a subsequent investigative detention.

The defendants denied liability, asserting the arrest was lawful and the detention justified.

The court, applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning the officers' knowledge regarding the recognizance, the reasonableness of the investigative detention, and allegations of racial profiling.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision in which the motion judge found that the respondent vendors breached an Agreement of Purchase and Sale by failing to deliver unencumbered title.

However, the motion judge limited damages to the deposit amount of $25,000 and refused to award damages for loss of bargain, finding that the benefit was illusory.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that there was a real bargain and that the appellant was entitled to damages for the difference between the agreed purchase price and the higher price eventually paid for the property, totalling $187,500.

The respondents' cross-appeal was dismissed.

The Court also addressed the costs of both the motion and the appeal.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a summary judgment motion where the plaintiff, Birchcliffe Core-Harbour Inc., was partially successful in recovering its $25,000 deposit but failed in its claim for $187,500 in loss of bargain damages.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The defendants, Stella and Stainton Pinnock, sought substantial indemnity costs of over $95,000 or partial indemnity of over $82,000, arguing the complexity of novel legal arguments.

The plaintiff argued for no costs or a maximum of $2,475.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors and the principle of proportionality, found the defendants' claimed hours disproportionate to their partial success and awarded them $20,000 in fees plus $3,250 in disbursements, plus HST, to be paid by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Birchcliffe Core-Harbour Inc., sought summary judgment against the defendants, Stella Pinnock and Stainton Pinnock, for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale, claiming damages for loss of bargain and return of a deposit.

The defendants failed to deliver clear title due to an outstanding mortgage with substantial arrears.

The plaintiff subsequently purchased the property from the mortgagee via a power of sale.

The court found the defendants breached the agreement, entitling the plaintiff to the return of the deposit.

However, the claim for loss of bargain was dismissed, as the defendants had no equity in the property, and the "bargain" was deemed illusory.

The defendants' counterclaim for bad faith was also dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the question of costs following a trial where the plaintiff, Iris R. Powell, recovered $26,700 plus interest against one defendant, Mohamed Afzal Sahadat, but her action was dismissed against other defendants and her co-plaintiff's action was dismissed entirely.

The defendants' counterclaim was also dismissed.

The court applied the principles of costs, including indemnity, encouraging settlements, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour, as well as the factors under Rule 57.01.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that the action should have been brought in Small Claims Court, as Ms. Powell's recovery exceeded the monetary limit.

Ms. Powell's costs against Mr. Sahadat were discounted due to her partial success (unsuccessful on a major claim for business losses) and the complexity she contributed.

Similarly, the costs awarded to the successful defendants (Ishan Dhanapala, Dhana Corporation, and First Financial Consulting Services (FFCS) Ltd.) against Ms. Powell were discounted due to their contribution to the trial's complexity and their unsupportable counterclaim.

The court declined to award personal costs against Ms. Powell's counsel, citing the principle of extreme caution.

Ultimately, Mr. Sahadat was ordered to pay Ms. Powell $19,000 in costs, and Ms. Powell was ordered to pay Ishan Dhanapala, Dhana Corporation, and First Financial Consulting Services (FFCS) Ltd. $23,450 in costs.

The plaintiff sought to vary or set aside previous interlocutory orders made by Masters Short and Jolley, including orders setting aside a noting in default, refusing representation by a non-lawyer agent, and directing the Registrar not to note the defendant in default.

The plaintiff's motion was brought under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which the court found to be an improper use as the preconditions were not met and the time for appeal had expired.

The court also reviewed the merits of the plaintiff's grounds for challenging the orders and found no reviewable error by the Masters.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs.

The moving party, 2181550 Ontario Inc., sought all costs incurred in enforcing previous orders against Palwinder Singh Nijjar, who had failed to indemnify 2181550 Ontario Inc. for a judgment and costs.

Enforcement efforts spanned Canada and the U.S., incurring significant legal fees.

The court considered proportionality and jurisdiction, declining to order costs for the U.S. proceeding, deeming it a matter for the foreign court.

The court awarded a maximum of $35,000 CDN for costs incurred in Canada, emphasizing that costs must be proportionate to the original judgment and reasonable.

The plaintiffs, Iris Powell and The Classic Plus Woman Inc., brought an action against multiple defendants concerning an advance of money.

The court found that Powell advanced $20,000 as a loan to Mohamed Afzal Sahadat, which was then directed to corporations controlled by Ishan Dhanapala for a membership in an investment club related to a condominium project.

Sahadat was obligated to repay $20,000 plus a 39.5% premium ($7,900), totaling $27,900, payable on demand, less $1,100 already repaid.

The court dismissed claims against other defendants (Sean Silva, Ishan Dhanapala, Dhana Corporation, FFCS Ltd.) and found that The Classic Plus Woman Inc. lacked standing.

Powell's claim for consequential business losses was denied, adhering to the principle that damages for failure to pay a debt are generally limited to interest unless special circumstances exist.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his civil action for damages arising from his arrest on February 13, 2013.

The motion judge had dismissed the action as time-barred, finding that the limitation period for battery and false arrest claims crystallized on the date of arrest.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that where a battery action is a mirror image of criminal charges, the discovery date is when the criminal proceedings conclude, not when the arrest occurs.

The appellant's action, commenced May 13, 2016, was within two years of the October 22, 2015 conclusion of the criminal charges via peace bond and therefore not time-barred.