Patrick J. Kraemer

The applicants were successful on a motion regarding the procedure for DNA testing to determine if the respondent's child was the biological child of the deceased.

The applicants sought costs of $17,485.82 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis.

The court found the applicants were the successful parties and their offer to settle was reasonable, but concluded the costs claimed were excessive given the narrow issue and the modest amount in dispute ($62,841.54).

The court fixed the applicants' costs at $7,213 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendants successfully moved to set aside a default judgment and sought substantial indemnity costs of $84,948.42.

The court declined to award costs to the defendants, finding that the setting aside of the default judgment was an indulgence necessitated by the defendants' own lack of diligence.

Although the plaintiffs engaged in improper conduct by failing to make full disclosure on the ex parte motion for default judgment and attempting to enforce it without notice, the defendants' prior conduct, including a fraudulent conveyance, militated against a costs award in their favour.

The court ordered the parties to bear their own costs.

The applicant's motion to amend its notice of application was previously dismissed.

The respondents sought costs of $12,979.13 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for no costs or deferred costs, citing divided success, novel questions of law, and its impecuniosity due to expropriation.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, finding the respondents were entirely successful and the applicant's conduct in bringing a duplicative and unnecessary motion warranted rebuke.

The court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $12,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought leave to amend its notice of application to add the interim Chief Building Official as a respondent and to appeal his alleged 'decision' that the applicant was not an 'aggrieved person' regarding a prior Unsafe Order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed amendments were not legally tenable.

The court held that the interim official's communication was not an appealable 'decision' under section 25(1) of the Building Code Act, as standing is a determination for the court, not the official.