Paul B. Schabas

Following a default judgment granted on January 5, 2026, the plaintiff's counsel advised by letter that the failure to seek costs in the original endorsement was inadvertent.

The plaintiff subsequently sought costs on a partial indemnity scale of approximately $6,000 inclusive of HST, plus disbursements of $832.10 and HST of $93.35.

The court found the Bill of Costs to be poorly prepared, as it failed to provide totals for time or disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and costs.

In an oppression application under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act, the applicant sought declarations of 50% ownership and broad accounting relief concerning multiple closely-held ventures.

The court found, on objective intention and course-of-conduct evidence, that the parties had agreed to equal ownership and profit-sharing in two ongoing ventures, and that non-disclosure and non-accounting conduct was oppressive and unfairly prejudicial.

Relief against one corporation tied to a restaurant sold in 2018 was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court declared 50% share ownership in the remaining corporations, ordered issuance of shares, full financial disclosure and accounting, and payment over of any amounts found owing.

Costs of $30,000 were awarded to the applicant.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against a defendant noted in default who had fraudulently induced him to advance large sums of money on promises of investment returns.

The court granted default judgment awarding $327,850 in liquidated damages, $250,000 in general damages for losses due to the defendant's dishonest conduct, and $100,000 in punitive damages for reprehensible conduct in taking advantage of an unsophisticated person and depriving him of much of his life savings.

The court also awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $89,448.60, exceeding the amount sought by the plaintiff, based on the Bill of Costs and the defendant's conduct.

The plaintiff landlord corporation brought an application under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 for a writ of possession and an order for payment of rent arrears and utilities, the monetary amounts exceeding the jurisdiction of the Landlord Tenant Board.

The respondent tenant admitted non-payment of rent but claimed he had been negotiating a business arrangement with the landlord's representative excusing him from payment.

The court found the respondent filed no sworn evidence supporting any such agreement and granted the relief sought, including a writ of possession, arrears, and partial indemnity costs of $4,250.00.

During a class action trial involving cosmetic surgery patients and allegations related to social media consent forms, the defendants called a witness and sought to qualify him as an expert in eDiscovery document collection and retention.

The plaintiffs objected on the basis that the witness lacked independence and impartiality, having blindly followed counsel's instructions and failed to ensure compliance with PHIPA.

The court ruled that the proposed evidence was factual in nature rather than expert opinion, as the witness was simply explaining the steps he took and the data he extracted from electronic medical records.

Since the evidence was factual and not presumptively inadmissible opinion evidence, the court did not need to address the impartiality objections, but noted that cross-examination on those issues could be relevant to the weight of the evidence.

The plaintiff, a waste disposal broker, brought a motion for summary judgment alleging the defendant waste disposal service provider breached non-solicitation, non-compete, and confidentiality provisions of a four-year waste disposal services agreement, as well as the duty of good faith.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for judgment on unpaid invoices totalling $37,611.47.

The court interpreted the restrictive covenants narrowly, finding they were geographically limited to Ontario, that the definition of "GIC Client" required an active commercial relationship, and that business relationships were location-specific rather than entity-wide.

The plaintiff failed to establish any breach of the restrictive covenants, confidentiality obligations, or duty of good faith.

The plaintiff's motion and action were dismissed, and the defendant was granted judgment on its counterclaim for unpaid invoices.

This is a costs endorsement following the court's grant of an interlocutory injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $44,086.96, relying on an Offer to Settle served on August 19, 2025, which proposed settlement on essentially the same basis as the relief granted.

The plaintiff alternatively sought partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court fixed costs at $33,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding that while the defendants' conduct did not justify costs throughout on a substantial indemnity scale, it was objectionable and they ought to have accepted the offer.

The plaintiffs, Ebury Partners Canada Ltd. and Ebury Partners Finance Ltd., moved for summary judgment against the defendants for debts allegedly owed under a Transaction Finance Agreement and a Foreign Exchange Services Agreement.

The plaintiffs sought $142,251.07 plus interest under the FX Agreement and $84,496.40 plus interest under the TF Agreement, with the latter also sought against the defendant William Friedman as a personal guarantor.

The defendants opposed the motion, alleging that Ebury had made misrepresentations regarding the provision of advice and risk management tools.

The court found that summary judgment was appropriate and granted judgment for the plaintiffs in full.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the proceeding on the ground that the plaintiffs breached the obligation to immediately disclose a settlement agreement with co-defendant Liam Buck that changed the adversarial landscape of the litigation.

The plaintiffs disclosed the settlement on March 17, 2023, but did not provide full details of the agreement, including that Buck would recant his prior evidence.

The court found that the disclosure was inadequate and that the failure to immediately and forthrightly disclose an agreement changing the adversarial orientation constitutes an abuse of process.

The court granted the stay as required by Handley Estate v. DTE Industries Limited, despite acknowledging the harshness of the remedy and the absence of prejudice to the moving parties.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an arbitrator's Partial Award on questions of law pursuant to section 45(1) of the Arbitration Act, or alternatively to set aside the award pursuant to section 46(1)6 on grounds of unequal treatment.

The arbitrator had awarded damages to the respondents in a commercial dispute arising from a share purchase agreement.

The court found that the arbitration agreement contained a clear bar to appeals on questions of law, making an appeal impossible.

The court also found that the applicants had failed to raise any pure questions of law.

The applicants' application was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favour of the respondents in accordance with both the Partial Award and Final Award.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's tenancy at commercial premises.

The plaintiff had entered into a binding lease in 2021 with the former landlord for approximately 54,800 square feet.

Due to a holdover tenant, the plaintiff only occupied approximately 27,000 square feet beginning in April 2024 on a month-to-month basis.

When the defendants purchased the property in April 2025, they initially accepted the arrangement but subsequently demanded full payment under the original lease and issued a notice of termination for alleged rental default.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, finding that all three prongs of the RJR-MacDonald test were satisfied.

The defendants' zoning by-law concerns were addressed but did not outweigh the balance of inconvenience favoring the plaintiff.

The defendant Parks Canada brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action based on the expiration of the two-year limitation period under section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff foundation sought to avoid the limitation period by arguing that the action was for declaratory relief only (exempt under section 16(1)(a)) or that it was based on Aboriginal and treaty rights (exempt under sections 2(1)(e) and 2(1)(f)).

The court found that the declaratory relief sought had no practical effect and was merely an attempt to circumvent the limitation period.

The court also found that the plaintiff was not an Aboriginal person or acting as an agent for Aboriginal peoples, and that the action was fundamentally a breach of contract claim that was time-barred.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

The defendants, two children's aid societies, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's action without leave to amend pursuant to Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff commenced the action in January 2025 against the defendants over their involvement in seeking child protection orders affecting the plaintiff's child in 2017.

The action alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of Charter rights.

The court found the action constituted an improper collateral attack on existing court orders and that the specific causes of action were untenable in law.

The action was struck out without leave to amend, and costs of $2,500 per defendant were awarded.

A neighbourhood association sought to enforce restrictive covenants and by-laws against a property owner who proposed to add eight new windows to the exterior side wall of his townhouse following fire damage repairs.

The owner challenged the validity of the restrictive covenants as vague, uncertain, and ambiguous, arguing they lacked objective criteria and could be enforced arbitrarily.

The court upheld the restrictive covenants as valid and enforceable, finding they were part of a building scheme designed to preserve uniformity of the community's exterior appearance.

The court distinguished building schemes from developer's restrictive covenants, noting that under a building scheme all owners share similar burdens and benefits.

The court granted the association's application for a declaration that the covenants were valid and enforceable, and that the owner was in breach.

The accused was convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, and breach of a probation order following a brutal, premeditated attack on the victim in a schoolyard.

The victim suffered permanent loss of sight in one eye and other serious injuries.

The court imposed a sentence of 5 years imprisonment for aggravated assault, with 2 years concurrent for robbery and 6 months concurrent for breach of probation.

The court rejected the Crown's submission for 6-7 years and the defence submission for 4 years, finding that 5 years was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence, the victim's life-changing injuries, the premeditated nature of the attack, and the accused's lengthy criminal record, while noting the record did not include serious prior violent offences.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of section 195.6 of the Highway Traffic Act, which required the removal of protected bicycle lanes on Bloor Street, University Avenue, and Yonge Street in Toronto and their replacement with lanes for motor vehicle traffic.

The applicants argued that the provision violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by putting cyclists at increased risk of injury and death, and that the infringement was arbitrary and grossly disproportionate to the stated objective of reducing traffic congestion.

The court found that the provision was unconstitutional, as the evidence established that removing the protected bike lanes would not achieve the stated objective of reducing congestion and would instead increase the risk of collisions and injuries for all road users.

The court also found that the government had been advised internally that the removal would not reduce congestion, yet proceeded with the legislation anyway.

The application was not moot despite subsequent amendments to the legislation, as the government retained the power and stated intention to remove the bike lanes.

The court considered whether Gan Yeladim Day Care Centre (GYDC) was entitled to remain in the premises of Beth Emeth Bais Yehuda Synagogue (BEBY) after the expiry of its lease and subsequent failed negotiations for a new lease.

The court found that GYDC had properly given notice of its intention to renew, and that the lease was effectively extended for another year based on the parties’ conduct and history.

The court granted GYDC equitable relief, allowing it to remain until August 31, 2026, to find a new location, and awarded costs against BEBY.

The court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance of an alleged agreement to purchase a supermarket business, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts showing acceptance of the agreement, lacked standing, and that the alleged agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

Leave to amend was granted only to clarify standing for a claim for return of deposit.

The court sentenced Corbin Hucker to three years’ imprisonment on each of three counts of sexual assault, to be served concurrently, following a jury trial.

The offences involved non-consensual sexual activity with his intimate partner.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the seriousness of the offences, the intimate partner context, the impact on the complainant, Hucker’s lack of criminal record, his youth at the time of the offences, and the significant emotional and social consequences he experienced.

The court imposed ancillary orders, including a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The court considered whether Fluid Hose & Coupling Inc. was an insured under a builders’ risk insurance policy and thus immune from a subrogated action for property damage.

The court found that the policy’s broad language included Fluid Hose as a subcontractor, barring the action against it.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, instead fixing costs on a partial indemnity basis.