Pasquale Santini

The defendant, having been successful on a summary judgment motion, sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, the responding party, argued for a lower partial indemnity amount.

The court considered the factors outlined in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the success of the motion, the complexity and importance of the matter, and the principle of proportionality.

While acknowledging the complexity and importance of the issue to the defendant municipality, the court found the time spent by junior counsel to be excessive for what the losing party would reasonably expect to pay.

Costs were ultimately awarded on a partial indemnity basis, significantly reducing the defendant's requested amount.

The defendant, The Standard Insurance Brokers Ltd. (Standard), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' (Blairs') claim.

The Blairs had previously been granted leave to amend their Statement of Claim to include negligent misrepresentation and punitive damages.

The court dismissed Standard's summary judgment motion, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including significant credibility issues between the Blairs and a co-defendant, and the need for further expert evidence.

The court emphasized that a fair and just adjudication could not be achieved through summary judgment in this case, and awarded costs to the Blairs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs (Blairs) brought a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Claim to include claims of negligent misrepresentation and bad faith with resultant punitive damages against The Standard Insurance Brokers Ltd. (Standard).

Standard cross-motioned for summary judgment.

The court focused on the motion to amend, considering whether the amendments constituted new causes of action, if they were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, and if they would cause non-compensable prejudice.

The court found that it was not plain and obvious that the claims for negligent misrepresentation and bad faith could not succeed at trial, and that the discoverability principle applied, meaning the limitation period did not begin until the expert report was received.

The court granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim.

The defendant landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a fatal residential fire.

The plaintiffs alleged the fire was caused by a faulty electrical socket due to the landlord's negligence.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs lacked evidence to prove causation and relied on the statutory defence for accidental fires under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the eyewitness evidence of a surviving child, combined with a forensic engineer's report, provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to establish a genuine issue for trial.

The plaintiffs were successful in a Rule 26 motion to amend their pleadings and sought costs.

The defendants argued the costs should be reduced due to efforts expended on an anticipated summary judgment motion based on the prior pleadings, which they claimed were costs thrown away.

The court declined to discount the costs on this basis, noting the summary judgment motion might not have succeeded and some preparation might still be useful.

The court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $14,212.82 on a partial recovery basis.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to deliver a fresh statement of claim in a negligence action against a fitness club and associated entities.

The proposed amendments sought to add a claim for negligent misrepresentation regarding insurance coverage and to pierce the corporate veil, based on information obtained during discoveries.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the amendments pleaded evidence, withdrew admissions, raised untenable claims, were statute-barred, and constituted an abuse of process.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments, finding the amendments pleaded material facts, did not cause irreparable disadvantage, and raised triable issues discovered within the limitation period.

The motion was granted.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking to bar the plaintiffs' action for a fatal motor vehicle accident under section 267.6 of the Insurance Act, arguing the deceased driver was uninsured.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence against the Ministry of Transportation and its contractor for highway design and non-repair.

The court, applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation and guided by Hernandez v. 1206625 Ontario Inc., determined that section 267.6 does not apply to bar claims against tortfeasors whose liability arises from negligent highway design or non-repair, as such liability does not arise directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs, allowing the action to proceed.

The applicants appealed a Master's order dismissing their action.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the appeal was brought in the wrong court, as appeals from a case management master's final order lie to the Divisional Court.

The court also determined that Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for dismissal of vexatious or frivolous proceedings, does not apply to appeals.

The appeal was effectively dismissed due to procedural impropriety.

The moving parties sought to review an order of a single judge dismissing their motion to expedite the hearing of two leave to appeal motions.

The underlying matters related to a Crown wardship order and a Habeas Corpus application.

The moving parties argued that as Aboriginal people, they had a right to have matters heard in a court of equity applying Aboriginal law, and that the children's aid society had no authority to apprehend their children.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no basis to interfere with the single judge's procedural ruling that the matters were not properly before the court.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the respondent school board had not discriminated against him and had met its procedural duty to accommodate by requesting an Independent Medical Examination (IME).

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and the Ontario Human Rights Commission's policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no conflict with jurisprudence or policy, and noting that disagreement with the Tribunal's weighing of evidence is not a valid ground for reconsideration.

The appellant, operator of Fort Henry, settled a personal injury claim with a plaintiff who fell into a moat after attending a banquet at a restaurant run by the third party.

The appellant sought indemnity from the third party, arguing it breached its contract or was negligent by failing to escort the plaintiff to her bus.

The trial judge dismissed the third party claim, finding no evidence connecting the plaintiff's fall to the departure of other guests.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to meet its burden of proof.

The appellants appealed a motions judge's decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment based on the expiry of the limitation period.

The motions judge found a genuine issue for trial regarding when the respondent knew or ought to have known that the water leakage was caused by the appellants' acts or omissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion or his decision not to exercise fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04, as resolving the discoverability issue would require considering virtually all trial evidence.

This was a costs endorsement following a successful summary judgment motion that disposed of the entire proceeding.

The successful plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of slightly less than $36,000 after delivering a formal offer to settle seven days before the hearing.

The court held that Rule 49 cost consequences should apply only from delivery of the offer and only to preparation for and attendance at the hearing.

Applying proportionality, the court fixed fair costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The court addressed costs relating to a motion for leave in a construction litigation matter involving a contractor, architect, and other construction parties.

On consent of the parties, the court fixed the costs of the motion for leave.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $6,000 plus HST to one defendant and $6,000 plus HST to the remaining defendants.

The costs were ordered payable in the cause of the appeal.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant insurer to recover the shortfall on a mortgage following a fire at the insured property and a subsequent power of sale.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the mortgagee was only entitled to the actual cash value of repairs and had failed to file a timely proof of loss.

The court granted summary judgment, holding that the standard mortgage clause created a separate contract between the mortgagee and insurer, entitling the mortgagee to recover its shortfall regardless of the mortgagor's actions or the lack of repairs.

The appellants appealed an order denying them leave to amend their statement of claim.

The proposed amendments sought a declaration that s. 30 of the Pension Act violates s. 7 of the Charter, aiming to access the respondent's federal pension to enforce any future judgment arising from an assault.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding the declaratory relief should have been sought against the federal government and was premature before a final determination of the current issues.

However, the court allowed amendments to the claim against Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario.

The plaintiff was injured when an employee of the defendant nightclub negligently discharged a firearm.

The plaintiff sued the nightclub for vicarious liability and breach of the Occupier's Liability Act.

The nightclub's insurer refused to defend the action, relying on a policy exclusion for bodily injury arising out of the ownership or use of a gun.

The nightclub brought a motion to compel the insurer to defend the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claims in negligence and under the Occupier's Liability Act were not entirely derivative of the excluded conduct, and that the exclusion clause was ambiguous as to whether it applied to all insureds or only the one who committed the excluded act.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s construction negligence action on the basis that it was statute-barred under the two-year limitation period in the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged water infiltration problems in a condominium project caused by deficiencies in an exterior acrylic stucco system supplied and installed by the defendants and designed by the architect.

The defendants argued the plaintiff knew of the loss and potential responsible parties in 2005–2006 and therefore the limitation period expired before the action was commenced in June 2008.

The court held that the discoverability issue was highly contextual and that the plaintiff’s ongoing investigation into the source of the leaks raised a genuine issue requiring trial.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate and the limitation issue must be determined at trial.

A fatal motor vehicle collision occurred after a driver borrowed the vehicle owner’s car earlier in the day and later drove it while intoxicated, causing the death of a young driver.

The plaintiffs and the vehicle owner’s insurer disputed whether the owner or the insurer was responsible for paying an agreed amount of damages.

The court considered whether the driver had possession of the vehicle with the owner’s consent under s.192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

Applying appellate authority emphasizing that consent to possession—not consent to operation—governs vicarious liability, the court found the driver remained in possession of the vehicle with the owner’s consent throughout the day.

The owner was therefore vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence and the claim against the insurer was dismissed.

The plaintiffs were successful on a motion to dismiss the claim against one of the defendants, after consenting to the dismissal of one plaintiff's claim without costs.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $8,561.40 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued for costs of $1,860.00 in the cause, noting that one of the two issues was resolved prior to the hearing.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and fixed costs payable to the plaintiffs at $3,300 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, apportioning some preparation time to the resolved issue.