P.J. Cavanagh

Following the successful application by the purchaser to rescind an agreement of purchase and sale due to the property's history as a marijuana grow-op, the purchaser sought costs of $30,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The vendors argued no costs should be awarded due to unproven allegations of recklessness and procedural delays by the purchaser's counsel.

The court rejected the argument to deny costs entirely but reduced the quantum, finding some time spent by the purchaser's counsel was beyond the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful parties.

Costs were fixed at $26,436.43.

The respondent was successful on an application involving complex commercial tenancy issues and sought partial indemnity costs of $48,846.92.

The applicants argued for a reduced amount of $27,000, relying on the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay.

The court reduced the respondent's hourly rates by approximately 15 percent but found the time expended to be reasonable.

Applying the principles from Boucher and Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs payable by the applicants to the respondent at $42,047.70, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a jury trial where the defendant TTC was entirely successful, the TTC sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the costs request, arguing that the TTC's in-house counsel did not keep time dockets and that she was impecunious.

The court held that time estimates were acceptable for in-house counsel and that the plaintiff provided no evidence to support her claim of impecuniosity.

The court awarded the TTC costs fixed at $34,383.40.

The applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity scale following a decision granting declaratory relief for property access under a development agreement.

The respondent argued the application was unnecessary and sought its own costs.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, as it obtained a significant remedy allowing it to proceed with remediation.

The court fixed the applicant's costs at $58,467.33 on a partial indemnity scale, finding the time spent and hourly rates reasonable.

Following a motion to strike evidence where the determination was reserved to the application judge, the parties made submissions on costs.

The responding party sought an immediate award of costs, while the moving party submitted costs should be reserved.

The court applied previous jurisprudence holding that where the merits of a motion to strike are not decided, costs should be reserved.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the judge hearing the application on its merits.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's order striking out four paragraphs of their Statement of Claim.

The paragraphs alleged that the defendant landlords had general knowledge that counterfeit merchandise was being sold at their flea market.

The Master struck the paragraphs under Rule 25.11, finding them irrelevant and scandalous.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, holding that the law on a landlord's vicarious liability for tenants selling counterfeit goods is unsettled, and it was an error to strike potentially relevant material facts at the pleadings stage.

The respondent club brought a motion to strike out portions of an affidavit filed by the applicant in support of an application, arguing the impugned paragraphs contained argument, contentious facts based on information and belief without a specified source, and privileged information.

The court considered whether it should rule on the admissibility of the evidence prior to the hearing of the application on its merits.

Applying the principle that evidence should generally not be struck on an interlocutory motion absent special reasons, the court declined to decide the admissibility issues.

The motion was dismissed, leaving the evidentiary rulings to the judge hearing the application.

The applicant insurer sought a declaration that the respondent insurer had a duty to defend their mutual insured in an underlying environmental contamination action.

The underlying action alleged that fuel oil migrated from the insured's property to a neighbouring property.

The respondent denied coverage based on an environmental liability exclusion clause.

The court found that the respondent had a duty to defend because the pleadings left open the possibility that the initial escape of contaminants was 'sudden and accidental', which would trigger an exception to the exclusion clause.

The court ordered the insurers to share the defence costs equally based on equitable principles.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant property owner for unpaid invoices relating to balcony restoration work.

The defendant opposed the motion and brought a motion for summary judgment against the third-party engineer for contribution and indemnity, while the engineer sought summary judgment dismissing the third-party claim.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that conflicting evidence regarding whether the additional work and waterproofing were authorized created a genuine issue requiring a trial that could not be resolved without viva voce evidence and credibility findings.

The moving party, a former non-equity partner at the responding party law firm, brought a motion as an intervenor seeking an order under Rule 45.02 for the payment into court of a specific fund.

The fund in question was a contingency fee payable to the law firm by a client, which the moving party claimed he was entitled to a portion of based on an employment and fee-splitting agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party's claim was essentially for damages for breach of contract rather than a legal right to a specific fund, and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the order.