Richard D. Simmons

Following two civil trials with divided outcomes, certain defendants and a corporate plaintiff sought costs relying on a settlement offer they argued was more favourable than the trial results.

The court considered the offer alongside the broader Rule 57.01 factors, including the conduct of the litigation and the proportionality of the proceedings.

The court criticized both sides for launching actions without adequate evidentiary bases, pursuing exaggerated damages claims, and unnecessarily prolonging the trials with marginally relevant evidence.

After reviewing the claimed fees and disbursements, the court reduced the amounts sought and fixed costs globally.

Costs of $50,000 all inclusive were awarded to the moving parties against certain plaintiffs, with a small notional costs award payable to additional defendants.

The plaintiffs alleged the existence of a partnership in a training and e‑learning business and sought recognition of partnership interests, constructive trust, and unjust enrichment remedies.

The defendants denied that any partnership agreement had been finalized.

After a lengthy trial turning largely on credibility, the court found that no partnership agreement had ever been concluded, noting the absence of agreed essential terms and the lack of capital contributions.

The court also rejected equitable claims, finding the evidence unreliable and noting that the alleged payments were in fact kickbacks rather than partnership income.

In a related action, the corporate plaintiff failed to establish defamation or intentional interference with economic relations arising from communications to college clients.

Following a trial and appeal regarding an employment dispute, the court determined the costs of the trial.

The defendant, who was successful on her counterclaim, sought costs based on an offer to settle.

The court found the offer to settle complied with Rule 49 and that the judgment was more favourable than the offer.

Finding the defendant's claimed costs of over $71,000 to be disproportionately high, the court fixed costs at $55,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.