Patrick Di Monte

Following a motion in civil litigation, the successful responding parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the absence of a Rule 49 offer and found no litigation misconduct or other circumstances warranting elevated costs.

The court rejected claims of over-preparation and noted a lack of genuine compromise in negotiations by certain parties.

Costs were awarded to the successful parties on a partial indemnity basis in a fixed amount inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion seeking a preservation order under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to secure an alleged constructive trust interest in a residential property that was about to be sold.

The moving party had supplied services and materials for the construction of the property but failed to register a construction lien within the time limits prescribed by the Construction Lien Act.

The plaintiff argued that if the contract were voidable due to non‑registration under the New Home Warranty Program Act, he could assert a constructive trust claim and obtain security through a preservation order.

The court held that the Construction Lien Act governs claims arising from the supply of services or materials to an improvement regardless of whether the claim is framed in contract or constructive trust.

Allowing a preservation order would undermine the statutory lien scheme and permit the plaintiff to circumvent the Act’s deadlines.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a successful commercial application for the return of a deposit, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a pre‑litigation letter requesting the return of the deposit.

The respondents opposed costs, arguing the case was uncertain, settlement options had been offered, and the application procedure was unusual.

The court held that the applicant was entirely successful and that the June 30, 2014 letter constituted a valid offer to settle within the meaning of Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because the judgment obtained was more favourable than the offer, the cost consequences of Rule 49.10 applied.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded but reduced from the amount claimed to reflect that Rule 49 provides substantial indemnity, not full recovery.

At a status hearing requiring the plaintiff to show cause why a long-delayed civil action should continue, the court applied the conjunctive test requiring an acceptable explanation for delay and absence of non‑compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The action had experienced approximately ten years of unexplained inactivity between the issuance of the claim and the service of the trial record.

The plaintiff relied on evidence of alcoholism, incarceration, family illness, and lack of funds to explain the delay.

The court held these explanations were unsupported or logically insufficient, particularly where the plaintiff had demonstrated an ability to instruct counsel at other times during the same period.

Having failed to establish an acceptable explanation for the delay, the action was dismissed without considering the prejudice branch of the test.

Former tenants commenced a civil action against their landlord alleging that, following eviction and termination of a residential lease, the landlord trashed or retained personal property left at the premises and sought damages of $100,000 plus punitive damages.

Earlier proceedings before the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal had found a breach of an agreement to allow additional time for removal of belongings, but the Divisional Court set aside the rent abatement and directed that damages be determined.

At trial, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the alleged property, failed to establish that the landlord destroyed or retained any goods, and relied on a list of items the court found unreliable and misleading.

The court also found that certain items alleged to be present were not even available for purchase in Ontario at the relevant time.

The plaintiffs therefore failed to establish damages or liability on a balance of probabilities.

Following the dismissal of the defendants’ motion and the granting of certain relief to the plaintiff, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis for legal fees and disbursements incurred on the motion.

The court deducted time attributable to related Court of Appeal proceedings but otherwise accepted the majority of the hours claimed.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs, finding the total amount proportionate to the significant sums at stake in the litigation.

A request by defence counsel for an additional ruling concerning mortgage accounts was refused as the issue had not been before the court on the motion.

A secured creditor applied for judgment against individual guarantors following the borrower corporation’s receivership.

The respondents had executed personal guarantees securing corporate indebtedness totaling $140,000.

Each guarantor attempted to shift responsibility to the other and argued the creditor should first exhaust recovery against the corporation.

The court held the guarantees expressly permitted the creditor to proceed directly against the guarantors without exhausting recourse against the principal debtor.

Finding no tenable defence, the court granted judgment against both guarantors for the guaranteed amounts plus interest and costs.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant general contractor and owner for unpaid invoices and extras relating to structural steel work.

The defendant general contractor counterclaimed for delay, deficiencies, and back charges, arguing the plaintiff failed to adhere to the project schedule and change order procedures.

The court found that the parties never agreed to a formal written contract or the change order procedure, but proceeded on an agreed price and scope of work.

The court held the plaintiff completed its work within a reasonable time and was not responsible for the project delays, which were attributable to the general contractor.

The plaintiff's claim for the contract balance and proven extras was allowed, and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought proceedings arising from a default under a mortgage registered against a commercial property.

The mortgage secured a principal amount of $1.2 million and had matured without any payments being made.

The defendant mortgagor and related parties challenged enforcement steps following the issuance of a notice of sale under the Mortgages Act.

The court found there was no viable defence to the enforcement proceedings and granted possession and ancillary relief, including orders directing tenants and government agencies to pay rents directly to the mortgagee.

The applicants moved for leave to amend their pleadings to withdraw long-standing admissions that the respondent held a right of way across their land.

The admissions had been made in three related proceedings spanning more than a decade and had formed the factual basis of a prior judgment and an endorsement by the Court of Appeal.

The applicants argued a title search revealed the right of way may not have been validly transferred in the chain of title.

Applying the test for withdrawing admissions, the court held the applicants failed to show the admissions were inadvertent and found that allowing withdrawal would cause significant prejudice because earlier court decisions relied on the admitted fact.

Public policy and finality of litigation also weighed against permitting the amendment.

Following dismissal of a motion for partial summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff opposed costs or alternatively argued that any award should be proportional given the simplified procedure context and the modest amount in issue.

The court applied the general rule that costs follow the event and considered proportionality and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reduced the amount sought and awarded a reasonable partial indemnity costs amount.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for partial summary judgment against a surety insurer under labour and material payment bonds after obtaining default judgments against the general contractor in Small Claims Court.

The insurer opposed the motion, arguing that multiple factual issues required determination at trial, including whether the bonds provided coverage, whether notice requirements were met, and whether limitation defences applied.

Applying the post‑amendment summary judgment framework and the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court held that the competing affidavits revealed significant factual disputes requiring credibility assessments.

The court concluded that the “full appreciation test” could not be satisfied on the motion record.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed and the matter was directed to proceed by summary trial under Rule 76.

In a medical malpractice and conspiracy action, a defendant physician moved for summary judgment and to strike claims under Rules 20, 21.01(3)(d), and 25.11.

The court held that the conspiracy allegations required the forensic machinery of a trial and declined to apply the best-foot-forward principle on this record.

On the malpractice claim, the court found the existing anesthesiologist report insufficient on the general practitioner standard of care but concluded a treating physician was not categorically disqualified from providing qualifying opinion evidence.

The motion was made conditional on service of a compliant report within 30 days, failing which the action against the moving physician would be dismissed with costs.