Patricia A. Lawson

The plaintiff sought costs following a motion for injunctive and non-injunctive relief related to a shareholder dispute over residential properties.

Although the request for an injunction was dismissed, the court granted equitable non-injunctive relief that protected the plaintiff's alleged interest in the properties.

The court found that the plaintiff achieved a measure of success on the motion, as the defendants had refused to extend their undertaking or agree to the relief sought.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of the motion on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $32,770, payable in the cause.

The applicant, Chase Wong, brought a motion for interim injunctive and non-injunctive relief under the oppression remedy provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The motion for interim injunctive relief was dismissed, while the motion for non-injunctive relief was granted.

The parties subsequently agreed on the terms of the order, which included provisions for accounting, restrictions on the use and sale of corporate properties, and prohibitions on certain corporate actions pending a final determination of the related application.

The court also provided directions for costs submissions and clarified that issues related to outstanding undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery require a separate motion.

The plaintiff, Chase Wong, brought a motion seeking interim injunctive relief and other interim relief under the oppression remedy provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Wong alleged a verbal agreement for a 50% shareholding in the defendant corporation, which owned three residential properties.

The court found a serious question to be tried regarding the alleged verbal agreement.

However, the request for interlocutory injunctive relief to prevent the sale, encumbrance, or major renovations of the properties was dismissed, as Wong failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be quantified in monetary terms.

A request for a declaration of constructive trust was also dismissed as it amounted to a final determination.

Despite this, the court granted interim non-injunctive relief, ordering the defendant corporation to remain the owner of the properties, account for income and expenses, and be precluded from using the properties as security (except for reasonable repair/renovation) without Wong's consent or a further court order.

An existing undertaking preventing the sale of properties remained in force until the terms of a detailed interim order could be finalized.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment seeking lost rental revenue from the defendants for breaching a commercial lease by failing to pay rent and timely reinstate a demising wall.

The defendants counterclaimed for overpayment of rent and argued the plaintiff breached an oral agreement for lease assignment and failed to mitigate damages.

The court found no binding oral agreement for lease assignment and that the defendants breached their obligation to reinstate the wall.

However, the plaintiff also failed to adequately mitigate damages.

The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff for five months' lost rent and allowed the defendants' counterclaim for overpaid rent.

The moving party and responding party are siblings and the sole heirs to their father's estate.

The moving party, acting as the estate trustee, submitted a passing of accounts for the period he acted in that capacity.

The responding party objected to several specific expenses claimed by the moving party, including legal fees, property taxes, and surveying costs.

The court reviewed ten contested items, approving some as legitimate estate expenses while reducing or rejecting others, particularly legal fees related to the litigation between the siblings and an unnecessary surveying cost.

The court assessed costs following successful summary judgment motions by Hydro One Network and Sarah McMillan and Andrew Cauty against the Datta and Khan plaintiffs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs for each of the two combined actions.

The court found the claims not excessive in principle but reduced the total amount to account for duplication of services across the two actions, which were treated as one.

Costs were assessed at $9,000 for Hydro One and $9,000 for McMillan and Cauty, to be split equally between the Datta and Khan plaintiffs.

The court noted that a complete indemnity award might have been considered had the plaintiffs' motives been argued, given the claims were entirely devoid of merit.