Paul D’Angelo

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Motion dismissed.

The court considered costs following two case conferences convened on the court’s own motion due to the plaintiff’s procedural conduct in related proceedings concerning a political party’s refusal to permit him to seek its nomination as a candidate.

The plaintiff, who was self‑represented, had scheduled multiple motions contrary to court directions and attempted to reinstate a vacated motion date after abandoning an earlier proceeding.

The defendants sought $2,000 in costs, while the plaintiff requested $35,000 for work performed in the proceedings.

The court found the case conferences were necessitated by the plaintiff’s inappropriate conduct and that the defendants’ request was reasonable.

Costs of $2,000 inclusive of HST were awarded to the defendants, payable forthwith by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff contractor brought an action for damages alleging breach of contract or, alternatively, negligent misrepresentation arising from negotiations to renovate premises for a fitness franchise.

The plaintiff argued that the parties reached a binding agreement through meetings, draft contracts, and text messages indicating work would commence, despite the absence of a signed contract.

The defendant maintained there was never a clear acceptance of the plaintiff’s proposal and that negotiations remained conditional on financing, lease arrangements, and other unresolved terms.

The court held the plaintiff failed to establish a meeting of the minds or acceptance of the offer and found no evidence of misleading representations.

The action and the defendant’s counterclaim were both dismissed.

Following the striking of a statement of claim alleging conspiracy, defamation, misfeasance in public office, and related torts against numerous defendants, the court determined the quantum of costs payable on the successful pleadings motion.

Multiple defendant groups sought more than $205,000 in partial indemnity fees and over $20,000 in disbursements.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the fairness principles articulated in Boucher, the court considered duplication of effort among separately represented defendants with similar interests.

The court concluded that substantial overlap existed between certain defendants’ legal work and therefore limited recovery to a single set of costs for those parties.

Reduced costs totalling $108,000 in fees plus $10,560 in disbursements were awarded, subject to HST.

The defendant brought a motion to determine costs after the parties agreed to end the litigation.

The plaintiff had originally sued the defendant, a former employee, for allegedly misappropriating confidential information and company property.

The action was ultimately discontinued as the anticipated damages did not materialize.

The court found that the litigation was not unreasonable when commenced, but since neither party prevailed on the merits, it ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage brought an action against the vendor, its principal, and the purchaser for an unpaid real estate commission.

The vendor and purchaser had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale during the listing period, which was later revived and closed under a different corporate purchaser name at the vendor's insistence to avoid paying the commission.

The court found that the commission was earned and payable under the listing agreement.

The court also held the vendor's principal and the corporate purchaser liable for intentional interference with contractual relations for their bad faith conduct in attempting to circumvent the commission.