Philip John Kennedy

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where the plaintiffs successfully obtained leave to amend their statement of claim to add an additional defendant, John Shaw, in an intellectual property litigation.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the claim against Shaw was statute-barred.

The court found the plaintiffs were entirely successful on the motion, as the primary relief sought (adding the defendant) was granted, and the preservation of a limitation period defence for the defendants did not constitute "divided success." The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs, rejecting their request for substantial indemnity costs due to the absence of reprehensible conduct by the defendants.

The decision emphasizes that unsuccessful opposition to a motion does not, by itself, warrant elevated costs or deferral of costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of financial materials from a corporate defendant, including financial statements, income tax returns, and records related to its digital printing operations.

The action alleged that a former employee and shareholder breached non‑competition, non‑disclosure, and non‑solicitation obligations and assisted a competitor in establishing competing services, resulting in lost profits and unjust enrichment.

The court held that the requested documents were relevant to assessing both the plaintiff’s alleged losses and the defendant’s alleged gains.

The court rejected arguments that existing financial disclosures were sufficient and found that income tax returns were relevant to determining profits.

The court also held that a broader production period surrounding the non‑competition agreement was reasonable for assessing damages.

Following summary judgment enforcing a settlement agreement, the court determined costs and interest issues.

The successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, compensation for his own legal work as a lawyer-litigant, recovery for work performed by a lawyer in his firm, reimbursement of expert fees, and enhanced interest rates.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not justified and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

A litigant who is represented by counsel is not entitled to recover personal legal fees simply because he is a lawyer, though limited recovery was permitted for work performed by another lawyer in his firm.

The court also allowed certain tax advisory disbursements, disallowed an accountant’s fee, reduced costs due to late filing of submissions, and applied the statutory court rates for pre- and postjudgment interest.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement of portions of an international arbitral award under the International Commercial Arbitration Act and the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The respondent argued that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding attorney’s fees and arbitration costs because the arbitration clause required each party to bear its own costs except in the specific context of an early termination charge.

The court held that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award general attorney’s fees and costs after rejecting the contractual early termination provision that allowed such recovery.

As the parties had not expressly agreed in writing to amend the arbitration clause to allow fee‑shifting outside that provision, the cost award was unenforceable.

The court dismissed the application to enforce the attorney’s fees and cost components of the arbitral award and held that post‑judgment interest would be governed by the statutory rate under the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement arising from an oral agreement reached during a break in litigation proceedings.

The dispute concerned whether the settlement permitted the purchase of the defendant’s shares through a corporate share redemption rather than a purchase by the individual plaintiffs.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to determine the issue and converted the motion into a summary judgment motion.

After reviewing the surrounding circumstances and draft settlement documents, the court concluded that the parties intended the personal plaintiffs to purchase the shares.

The court declared that a binding settlement existed and ordered enforcement consistent with that interpretation.