Peter R. Greene

The plaintiff sought additional reasons following a trial decision regarding a failed real estate transaction.

The court clarified that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for $43,154.94, in addition to the $100,000 deposit already released, while dismissing the balance of the $247,552.52 claim.

On costs, the court reduced the defendants' costs award to $10,000 to reflect the plaintiff's partial success in recovering damages, despite the defendants' success on the exchange rate differential issue at trial.

The court also awarded the plaintiff $1,809.42 in pre-judgment interest, adjusting the interest period for the deposit to account for both parties' delay in releasing the funds.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

While the defendants admitted liability for the shortfall in the subsequent sale price and carrying costs, they disputed the plaintiff's claim for an additional $104,397.45.

This amount represented the increased cost of repaying US dollar promissory notes due to exchange rate fluctuations between the original and actual closing dates.

The court dismissed this portion of the claim, finding that the exchange rate loss on undisclosed promissory notes used to finance a different property was not reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was formed.

In a securities class action arising from the collapse of a forestry company, the plaintiffs sought approximately $2.6 million in costs following certification and leave motions brought under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Securities Act.

Several defendants argued that costs should not be awarded because the plaintiffs had already recovered legal expenses through settlements with other defendants and because the claimed costs were excessive.

The court held that the plaintiffs were largely successful but not entirely successful due to an unresolved assignment issue affecting certain class members.

The court also ruled that disbursements could not be recovered again because they had already been indemnified through settlements.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered a hybrid costs award: part payable immediately and part payable in the cause.

Following a successful civil action in which a transfer agreement was set aside and the plaintiff was declared to hold a one‑third interest in certain assets, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendants’ conduct involved breach of fiduciary duty, undue influence, misrepresentation, and unconscionability.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were warranted because the defendants’ conduct was reprehensible, including exploiting a vulnerable family member and deliberately failing to produce relevant financial records during litigation.

After considering objections regarding duplication of counsel, abandoned claims, and the reasonableness of hours billed, the court fixed costs globally.

The court awarded $525,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

Following a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, the court addressed the appropriate process for determining costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $587,000, while the defendants argued that the matter should be referred to an assessment officer because the plaintiff had not produced detailed dockets or invoices supporting the claimed fees and disbursements.

The court held that under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial judge should ordinarily fix costs and that referral to an assessment officer is reserved for exceptional cases.

The absence of detailed dockets did not make the case exceptional, particularly where a proper costs outline had been provided in accordance with the rules.

The court declined to order an assessment and directed a further written exchange of submissions after disclosure of dockets if requested.

The plaintiff's husband died in a construction accident, leaving her as the sole heir to his one-third interest in a successful family construction and real estate business.

While emotionally distraught and relying heavily on her sister-in-law to manage the estate and business affairs, the plaintiff signed a Transfer Agreement giving up her husband's shares and real estate interests in exchange for a condominium of significantly lesser value.

The plaintiff brought an action to set aside the Transfer Agreement.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the sister-in-law and brother-in-law had abused their relationship of trust, and set aside the agreement on the grounds of undue influence, unconscionability, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court also declared that the plaintiff was entitled to a one-third interest in various joint venture properties that had been improperly diverted to a company solely owned by the sister-in-law.