R. B. Reid

The parties sought costs following a consolidated application regarding a commercial lease dispute where the applicant obtained declaratory relief terminating the lease, but monetary claims were deferred to proceed as an action.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $55,361.66, while the respondents sought costs of $63,068 arguing divided success.

The court found it could not accurately apportion the applicant's costs specifically to the successful declaratory relief claim and reserved the issue of costs to the trial judge hearing the remaining damage claims.

Following a decision confirming the Public Guardian and Trustee as the statutory guardian of property for an incapable person, the court determined the issue of costs.

The unsuccessful respondent, who had sought to be appointed guardian, was ordered to pay costs to the Public Guardian and Trustee and to the incapable person, who had opposed his appointment.

The court rejected the argument that the publicly funded Public Guardian and Trustee should not be awarded costs, and fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) sought an order confirming its refusal to issue a certificate of statutory guardianship to the respondent son in respect of his incapable mother.

The mother, who was diagnosed with dementia, strongly opposed her son's appointment due to a history of family conflict and alleged financial misappropriation.

The court considered the incapable person's wishes, the closeness of the relationship, and her best interests under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court concluded that appointing the son would cause increased conflict and that the mother's best interests were aligned with her wish for the PGT to remain as her statutory guardian of property.

The applicant father brought a motion for an interim order to share parenting time on a 2-2-3 rotating schedule, or alternatively to expand his existing parenting time.

The parties had been separated for two years with the child residing primarily with the respondent mother.

The court declined to order a 2-2-3 schedule, finding it would be a significant and destabilizing change to the status quo shortly before trial.

However, applying the maximum contact principle, the court granted the alternative request to modestly expand the applicant's existing parenting time to include additional overnights, finding it was in the child's best interests.

The court determined costs following a contested motion for interim child support and a cross-motion for parenting time.

Both parties claimed success and relied on formal offers to settle.

The court found that success was divided, but the final order was closer to the applicant's position.

The applicant was awarded costs of $13,015.74 on a partial indemnity basis, payable in any event of the cause.

The Applicant sought costs following a successful motion to dispense with the Respondent's signature on a land transfer and the dismissal of the Respondent's cross-motion to set aside a previous order.

The Applicant had made a Rule 18 offer to settle that mirrored the court's ultimate decision.

The court awarded the Applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a full indemnity basis thereafter, fixing the amount at $9,654.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his statement of claim, which was allowed in part after the defendant successfully objected to several proposed amendments that offended the rules of pleading.

The parties could not agree on costs for the motion.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendant, fixed at $1,400, reflecting the defendant's partial success and the divided outcome of the motion.

Following successful summary judgment motions by two lawyers dismissing the counterclaims against them in a mortgage enforcement action, the court determined costs.

The self-represented plaintiffs by counterclaim were ordered to pay costs of $3,000 to each lawyer on a partial indemnity basis, as the lawyers should not have been made parties to the action and incurred unnecessary legal expenses.

Following a decision finding a binding agreement of purchase and sale for 48 residential building lots, the successful purchaser sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court awarded costs to the purchaser, applying partial indemnity rates up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity rates thereafter.

The court reduced the claimed hourly rates to reflect appropriate percentages of full indemnity rates and deducted time spent on an unissued statement of claim, fixing total costs at $62,770.92.

The applicant sought an order under Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring his former law firm to reimburse him for costs he was ordered to pay after his civil action was administratively dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the dismissal was due to the firm's unexplained delay.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the applicant may have other remedies such as a professional negligence claim, the lawyer's conduct did not meet the high threshold of bad faith, abuse of process, or serious interference with the administration of justice required for a personal costs order against a lawyer.