3 total
The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $4,000 to the plaintiffs following the defendants' unsuccessful motion for particulars.
The court fixed the costs of the defendants' unsuccessful motion for further particulars.
The plaintiffs, as the successful party, sought full indemnity costs, while the defendants argued for no costs or limited partial indemnity.
The court rejected the defendants' argument that the motion's dismissal was due to "evolving Rules reforms" justifying no costs.
It also rejected the plaintiffs' request for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the defendants.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs, considering the moderate complexity and the defendants' unnecessary pursuit of the motion, fixing the amount at $4,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.
The court dismissed a motion for particulars, finding the pleadings sufficient and the requested details either known to the defendants or discoverable.
The defendants brought a motion for particulars seeking additional details regarding the plaintiffs' claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent payments, oppression, and piercing the corporate veil.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim provided sufficient material facts to allow the defendants to plead.
The judge emphasized that many requested particulars were either already provided, within the defendants' own knowledge (e.g., corporate records), or could be obtained through the discovery process.
The court also expressed concern that the motion for particulars was being used as a delay tactic, contrary to the goals of civil procedure reform.
The court approved a global settlement and a contingency fee arrangement involving a minor plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle accident.
This motion sought court approval for a proposed settlement affecting the minor plaintiff, Davon Khan, and other plaintiffs, arising from a car accident.
The court reviewed the settlement allocation and contingency fee arrangement under Rule 7.08, ensuring it was fair and in the minor plaintiff's best interests, particularly given the soft tissue injuries and litigation risks.
The settlement was approved, with a net payment into court for the minor plaintiff.
