Parisima Zandi

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion to extend the time for service of its statement of claim in a construction lien action.

The defendant tenant brought a cross-motion to declare the lien expired.

The plaintiff had delayed service because the tenant acknowledged the debt and requested an indulgence to secure financing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the plaintiff's explanation compelling and noted the tenant's conduct rose to the level of issue estoppel.

The court granted the extension, dismissed the cross-motion as moot, and declined to award costs to the tenant.

Following summary judgment dismissing counterclaims against a dentist arising from the sale of a dental practice and related employment litigation, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the counterclaims were meritless and relying on unaccepted settlement offers.

The court held that partial indemnity costs were appropriate because the unsuccessful parties were entitled to litigate their claims and the settlement offers did not justify punitive costs.

After reviewing the bills of costs and submissions, the court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs for each action.

Dr. Esty sold his dental practice to Dr. Douris.

Two former employees subsequently sued Dr. Douris and his professional corporation for wrongful dismissal.

Dr. Douris counterclaimed against the employees and joined Dr. Esty, alleging negligent misrepresentation regarding the practice's patient numbers and seeking indemnification for the wrongful dismissal claims.

Dr. Esty brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaims against him.

The court granted the motion, finding no evidence of misrepresentation, reliance, or breach of contract, and concluding that the indemnity clause in the sale agreement did not cover wrongful dismissal claims arising after the closing.

The plaintiff, having succeeded on a summary judgment motion for unpaid consulting fees, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the defendants' alleged reprehensible conduct and a time-limited offer to settle.

The court found that the defendants' conduct, including evading service and failing to make any settlement offers, was not 'reprehensible' enough to warrant punitive costs.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's time-limited offer did not attract presumptive cost consequences under Rule 49.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01, the court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $65,000, noting the importance of fostering access to justice and the defendants' failure to provide a costs outline.