Patrick John Harrington

The applicant, James Kritz, sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis after successfully obtaining an order to rescind a City of Guelph building inspector's order.

The City of Guelph argued for no costs.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found Kritz entitled to partial indemnity costs.

The court rejected the City's submission that success on two out of three arguments negated costs, affirming that costs follow the event of overall success.

The court fixed costs at $37,482.01, noting the City's own partial indemnity bill of costs was $29,367.33 and that Kritz's expert fees were reasonable and appropriate.

The request for substantial indemnity was denied as there was no finding of improper conduct by the City, the issue having been withdrawn by the applicant.

Following a successful motion striking the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim and dismissing the action, as well as the dismissal of the plaintiff’s cross‑motion, the defendant municipality sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the reasonableness of the time spent and proportionality of the costs claimed.

The court also noted the plaintiff’s litigation history and prior cost awards against him.

Finding the amount requested fair and within the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court fixed costs payable to the defendant.

The defendant municipality brought a motion under rule 21.01(3)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss an action on the basis that the plaintiff lacked legal capacity and standing.

The plaintiff, a minority shareholder and director of a corporation that owned the property subject to a site plan agreement, sought rescission of the agreement and damages in his personal capacity.

The court held that any rights and obligations arising from the site plan agreement belonged to the corporation, not the individual shareholder, and applied the rule in Foss v. Harbottle precluding shareholders from suing for wrongs done to the corporation.

The court further found that the corporation had never authorized the action and that adding the corporation as a plaintiff would require its consent and would also be barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff therefore lacked standing to maintain the claim.