Robert Bruce Macdonald

The plaintiffs purchased a cottage property with the intention of severing it into three lots, relying on the defendant solicitor's advice that severance would be straightforward due to a Planning Act consent stamp on title.

The solicitor later admitted this advice was negligent, as the consent was qualified and severance was not guaranteed.

The plaintiffs sued for the lost hypothetical value of the severed lots and carrying costs.

The court applied the Messineo measure of damages, finding that the plaintiffs suffered no loss because they paid fair market value for the unsevered property, which had since significantly increased in value.

The court awarded only $3,100 in special damages for the wasted retainer and application fees.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment on a proposed amended statement of claim, an order abridging time for service, and an order amending the statement of claim, seeking increased damages for mortgage deficiencies.

The motion was dismissed due to procedural irregularities and jurisdictional issues.

The court found that the motion to amend pleadings was not properly scheduled or served, and that motions for liquidated damages and amendments fall within the jurisdiction of an Associate Judge, not a Superior Court Justice in the Toronto Region.

The plaintiff, a commercial tenant, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant landlord from terminating its tenancy and repossessing the premises due to alleged discrepancies in square footage and other complaints.

The plaintiff was in significant rent arrears, having unilaterally abated rent based on its claims.

The court found no serious issue to be tried, emphasizing the tenant's obligation to pay rent in full under a commercial lease, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff sought to appeal an associate judge's order denying her leave to amend her statement of claim in an action for breach of contract and theft of intellectual property.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's notice of appeal, factum, and written submissions, finding them to be rambling, incoherent, and replete with conspiracy theories and attacks on the judiciary and third parties.

The court concluded that the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appeal was dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.02, and the plaintiff was prohibited from bringing further motions without leave under Rule 37.16.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to collect on a $500,000 promissory note.

The defendants failed to file responding materials on time, citing a conflict of interest and an internal corporate deadlock, and sought an adjournment on the eve of the motion.

The court refused the adjournment, finding the defendants' internal disputes did not constitute a defence to the debt, and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal concerning the valid exercise of a lease renewal option.

The appellant argued the tenant's notice was not clear and unequivocal because it included proposals for new terms.

The court affirmed the motion judge's finding that the tenant's explicit statement of intent to renew was sufficient, as the lease anticipated ongoing negotiations for rent, and the additional proposals did not render the notice conditional.

Following the plaintiff's successful motion regarding a commercial lease renewal, the court received written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $34,339.46, arguing the defendant's conduct was unreasonable and high-handed.

The defendant argued each party should bear its own costs or that partial indemnity costs should be significantly reduced.

The court found the defendant's conduct was not so egregious as to warrant substantial indemnity costs and awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff tenant brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that it validly exercised its option to renew a commercial lease for a school premises.

The defendant landlord brought a cross-motion seeking a declaration that the lease was not validly renewed.

The court found that partial summary judgment was appropriate and held that the tenant had provided explicit and unequivocal written notice of its intention to renew via email.

The court also found that the landlord had waived strict compliance with the lease's notice delivery requirements by communicating via email, and alternatively, the tenant would be entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiff's motion was granted and the lease was declared extended to August 31, 2025.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the respondent Receiver, representing Hillmount Capital Inc., was successful.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered the appellants, Celine and Richard Pizale, to pay the Receiver partial indemnity costs, fixed at $3,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellants, Celine and Richard Pizale, sought to appeal orders approving the sale of their partially-renovated property by a receiver and an administration order.

They argued they had an automatic right of appeal under s. 193(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) or, alternatively, should be granted leave to appeal under s. 193(e).

The Court of Appeal dismissed their panel review motion, affirming the chambers judge's decision that no automatic right of appeal existed as the sale approval order did not result in a loss beyond that already worked by the unappealed appointment order.

The court also found no basis to grant leave to appeal, concluding that the appeal did not raise an issue of general importance or prima facie merit, and would hinder the receivership process.

The applicant mother brought a motion to stay or consolidate a civil action commenced by her father-in-law with her family law application.

The father-in-law had advanced $1 million for the purchase of the matrimonial home, which the mother claimed was a gift and the father-in-law claimed was a loan.

The father-in-law commenced a civil action for possession of the home, while the mother sought exclusive possession and equalization in the family proceeding.

The court found that the central issue of whether the advance was a gift or a loan was common to both proceedings and ordered that the civil action be heard together with the family application to avoid inconsistent findings and save time and expense.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking $84,725.09 to reconcile a final profit split under a magazine publishing agreement that ended mid-year in 2019.

The agreement required the defendant to provide a minimum of $150,000 in advertising revenue annually, with the first $150,000 of net profit paid to the defendant reflecting this contribution.

Because only one edition was published in 2019, the defendant contributed only $62,625 in ad revenue but argued it was still entitled to the full $150,000 profit priority.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation and found that the profit priority was linked to the actual ad revenue contributed.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal by Willowbrook Nurseries Inc. against Royal Bank of Canada.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the respondent bank in the amount of $20,000.00 all-inclusive for the costs of the appeal.

A nursery business appealed a trial judgment dismissing its claim against its bank for breach of the duty to perform the lending agreement in good faith.

The appellant argued the bank acted in bad faith by refusing to extend additional credit and placing the account in Special Loans without reasonable notice of a change to the prevailing course of lending conduct.

The appellant also argued the bank's discretionary decision was objectively unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the bank did not breach its duty of good faith, that it was the appellant who sought to change the prevailing course of conduct by requesting additional credit without first repaying prior temporary overdraft accommodation, and that a bank's decision whether to lend new money is a subjective business decision not subject to objective reasonableness review.

Maria Anna Koundouros brought a motion to strike the claim of her former mother-in-law, Stavroulla Koundouros, who sought repayment of $1,598,000 advanced to Maria and her son during their marriage.

Maria argued that a promissory note for the funds was solely between Stavroulla and her son, Nicolaos, and therefore no cause of action existed against her.

The court dismissed Maria's motion, finding that Stavroulla's claim, which included allegations of unjust enrichment and trust claims based on joint benefit and Maria's access to funds, disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court emphasized that the Family Law Rules, not the Rules of Civil Procedure, primarily govern such family disputes and that the promissory note was not dispositive at this early stage.

The appellant tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding that the appellants' grounds—which alleged inadequate notice and cited medical and financial hardship—did not raise a question of law as required by section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court awarded costs of $3,500 to the respondent landlords.

The applicant sought an order under Rule 45.02 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure to compel the respondents to pay escrowed funds into court as security for a claim being pursued in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta.

The underlying dispute involved alleged latent defects in a real estate transaction.

The court questioned its jurisdiction to grant interlocutory relief under Rule 45.02 when no underlying proceeding was before the Ontario court.

The court ultimately dismissed the application, finding that Rule 45.02 does not provide a freestanding cause of action for freezing funds in support of an action in another jurisdiction, and even if it did, judicial comity dictated that the Alberta court should be approached first for such relief.

This endorsement addresses the determination of full indemnity costs following contempt proceedings.

The plaintiff, Sycor, claimed $280,530.83, while the defendants proposed $216,843.46.

The court reiterated that full indemnity costs cover all reasonably incurred fees and disbursements, not extra services.

The defendants challenged the hourly rates of the plaintiff's counsel and discrepancies in billed hours.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel's rates reasonable for Toronto's Commercial List, dismissing the argument that lower defence counsel rates should be determinative.

The court also rejected the use of outdated Civil Rules Committee cost guidelines for full indemnity costs.

A deduction of $22,000 was made for discrepancies in billed hours for the liability phase, but time spent on a preceding judicial settlement conference was deemed reasonably incurred.

Ultimately, the defendants were ordered to pay Sycor costs of $258,530.83 on a joint and several basis.

In the penalty phase of a civil contempt motion, the plaintiff sought to strike the defendants' pleadings, punitive damages, fines, and costs after the defendants were found to have intentionally failed to produce sales invoices and emails, and swore a false affidavit of documents.

The court declined to strike the pleadings or award punitive damages, noting the documents were eventually produced.

Instead, the court ordered the defendants to pay fines of $7,500 and $5,000 to the plaintiff, costs thrown away of approximately $20,000, and the costs of the contempt motion on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant brought an application to assess the accounts of his former criminal defence counsel, alleging misappropriation of a $20,000 retainer and professional misconduct.

The application was dismissed after a three-day trial where the court found the allegations to be entirely without merit and the applicant's evidence unreliable.

The respondent sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded the respondent substantial indemnity costs of $50,000, finding that the applicant's unfounded allegations of dishonesty and illegality warranted elevated costs.