Richard A. Lococo

Following dismissal of a motion seeking to have the respondent held in contempt of a prior court order concerning possession and transport of a killer whale, the court was required to determine costs.

Both parties sought substantial or full indemnity costs exceeding $250,000, with the moving party also claiming significant U.S. legal fees incurred in related foreign litigation.

The court reaffirmed that the successful party on a contempt motion is presumptively entitled to costs but retains discretion to depart from that result where warranted.

The court declined to award costs against the successful responding party or deny it costs, finding the moving party had failed to meet the high burden of proving contempt beyond a reasonable doubt but had nonetheless brought the motion reasonably.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $100,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax.

Following a seven‑day trial involving enforcement of a vendor‑take‑back mortgage, promissory note, and guarantees relating to the sale of a gasoline station, the successful lender sought costs on a full indemnity basis relying on contractual provisions and alternatively substantial indemnity costs after an offer to settle.

The defendants conceded that costs should be awarded but disputed the scale and quantum.

The court held that although the plaintiff was largely successful, the defendants achieved limited success on an issue that reduced the principal judgment by $80,000.

The court further held that the plaintiff’s offer to settle was an “escalating offer” that did not trigger Rule 49.10 cost consequences.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded and fixed globally in an amount reflecting the mixed success of the parties.

Following a successful motion for security for costs, the defendant sought an award of costs for the motion on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff did not dispute entitlement but argued the defendant achieved only partial success, claimed excessive costs, and requested that any award be in the cause rather than payable immediately.

The court held the moving party was substantially successful and rejected arguments that the award should be reduced for limited success.

While the amount claimed exceeded what would normally be expected for such a motion, the court accepted that additional work caused by late filings, expedited cross-examinations, and the complexity of the underlying action justified a higher award, subject to reduction for duplication of effort.

Costs were fixed and ordered payable within 30 days pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Following dismissal of a wrongful dismissal action after a four-and-a-half-day trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $62,000, while the unsuccessful plaintiff argued that the amount should not exceed $40,000.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the principles of indemnity and the reasonable expectations of an unsuccessful party, the court reduced the amount claimed.

The court also permitted recovery of modest travel expenses for out-of-town counsel.

Costs were fixed at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax.

An employee with 33 years of service brought a wrongful dismissal action after being laid off and subsequently refusing the employer’s offer to return to work.

The court accepted that the layoff constituted constructive dismissal and that the reasonable notice period would have been 24 months.

However, applying Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31, the court held that a reasonable person would have accepted the employer’s prompt offer of reinstatement because the workplace would not have been hostile or humiliating.

The employee therefore failed to mitigate damages by refusing to return.

The claim for damages in lieu of notice and moral damages was dismissed.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for security for costs against a corporate plaintiff in bankruptcy alleging a conspiracy by insurers to destroy its accident-benefits clinic business.

The court considered the framework under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including whether the plaintiff established impecuniosity, whether the claim had a good chance of success, and whether delay justified refusing the order.

The court found the plaintiff failed to demonstrate genuine efforts to obtain funding from creditors or shareholders and therefore did not establish impecuniosity.

The plaintiff also failed to demonstrate a good chance of success on the evidence presented, and the defendant had not delayed unreasonably in bringing the motion.

Security for costs was ordered in staged amounts.

Following a summary judgment motion in a franchise dispute, the court addressed costs after the moving party was largely unsuccessful except for striking a jury notice.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion had little chance of success, while the defendant argued costs should be reserved or limited because the motion was reasonably brought.

The court held that although the motion was not unreasonable, the unsuccessful party should ordinarily pay the successful party’s costs of the motion.

Applying the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering duplication of effort and partial success on the jury issue, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax.

The defendant franchisor brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the franchisees’ action on the basis of a mutual release signed following the failure of the franchised restaurant, and alternatively sought partial summary judgment dismissing a statutory rescission claim under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The plaintiffs argued the release was unenforceable due to unconscionability and statutory invalidity, and that disclosure deficiencies entitled them to rescind within the two‑year period applicable where no compliant disclosure document is provided.

The court held that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding the enforceability of the mutual release, including potential unconscionability, lack of legal advice, and imbalance of bargaining power.

The court also found that determining whether the disclosure requirements were satisfied under the statute required a full evidentiary record and could not be resolved on summary judgment.

However, the court struck the plaintiffs’ jury notice based on the contractual waiver and the equitable nature of certain relief sought.

Costs were determined following a civil trial where the plaintiff succeeded against one defendant but failed against another.

The court addressed entitlement to costs as between the plaintiff and each defendant, including the impact of Rule 49 offers to settle.

The successful institutional defendant was awarded costs against the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis before its offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The plaintiff was also awarded costs against the unsuccessful co-defendant, reduced to reflect time spent pursuing the unsuccessful claim against the bank.

The court declined to make either a Sanderson or Bullock order requiring the unsuccessful defendant to bear the successful defendant’s costs, finding such an order would be unfair and risk non-payment.