Patrick Lassaline

The applicants sought costs following the resolution of a dispute regarding the sale of a property.

The court found that the respondent's position and conduct during negotiations and litigation were unreasonable, as she failed to provide evidence or comply with procedural requirements.

The applicants were awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,278.16, to be paid from the respondent's share of the proceeds of the sale of the subject property.

Following a commercial trial concerning the valuation of a single common share under a share purchase agreement, the plaintiff obtained judgment significantly exceeding a pre‑trial offer to settle.

The court considered costs under Rules 49 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the discretion under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Because the plaintiff’s Rule 49 offer was more favourable than the judgment ultimately obtained, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court rejected the defendants’ objections to expert report disbursements and counsel fees, finding the litigation complex and the amounts reasonable and proportional.

Costs were fixed in the total amount of $60,458.99.

A dispute arose over the valuation of a retiring shareholder’s single common share under a share purchase agreement following the sale of an insurance brokerage business.

The plaintiff claimed the contractual formula yielded a payment of approximately $385,552, while the defendants argued the share had no value and sought rectification of the agreement to alter the valuation methodology.

The court interpreted the contractual formula using established principles of commercial contract interpretation and considered expert accounting evidence regarding whether fee income and sub‑brokerage commissions formed part of “annual commission income.” The court held that fee income generated from a brokerage acquisition constituted part of the recurring revenue stream and must be included in the formula, while sub‑brokerage commissions were properly excluded as pass‑through commissions.

Applying the formula accordingly, the court valued the share at $254,430 and rejected the defendants’ claim for rectification, finding no mutual mistake in the written agreements.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal which found that monthly administrative fees charged to tenants over and above the cost of hydro constituted illegal rent.

The landlord argued the issue fell under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Energy Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tenant Protection Act is remedial legislation that takes precedence over the Ontario Energy Board regulation.

The Court found the Tribunal's decision that the additional charges were illegal and had to be refunded was reasonable and correct.