Robert Bruce Macdonald

The applicant, a former client, brought an application under the Solicitors Act to assess the accounts of his former criminal defence lawyer.

The application was converted to a trial of an issue.

The applicant claimed he had paid a $20,000 cash retainer that was not credited, and that the lawyer provided inadequate representation.

The court rejected the applicant's evidence as unreliable and accepted the lawyer's evidence that no cash retainer was paid.

Because the accounts were delivered more than a month prior and mostly paid, the applicant had to demonstrate special circumstances to justify an assessment.

The court found no special circumstances and dismissed the application.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to discontinue their counterclaim and a related fraud action, and to redeem a mortgage.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to discontinue its claim for foreclosure.

The court granted the defendants leave to redeem the mortgage upon payment of the principal, interest, and costs totaling over $1.2 million, and granted leave to discontinue their actions upon payment of costs of $516,395.23.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to discontinue the foreclosure claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff purchased an industrial property that was later discovered to be contaminated with PCBs.

The plaintiff sued the vendor and related companies for fraud, alleging they concealed the contamination.

After several years of litigation, the plaintiff moved to discontinue its fraud action and counterclaim.

The defendants opposed, seeking dismissal and costs on a full indemnity scale.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to discontinue the action on terms that prevent future litigation on the same causes of action.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs fixed at $516,395.23 on a substantial indemnity scale, finding that the fraud allegations were unsubstantiated but not intentionally misleading.

This costs endorsement followed motions arising out of a foreclosure action, related construction lien actions, and a fraud action concerning contaminated industrial property.

The moving parties sought to discharge or assign a mortgage by paying principal, interest, and limited costs, while the mortgagee resisted and sought broader recovery.

After divided success on the underlying motions, the court held that neither side should recover costs of the motions.

No costs were awarded.

Following a three‑day trial in which the plaintiff’s claim for $68,506.25 was dismissed, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted because there was no Rule 49 offer triggering such consequences and no reprehensible conduct by the opposing party.

The court also adjusted the claimed partial indemnity rate, finding that a 67% recovery of actual counsel rates was excessive and that a rate approximating 60% of substantial indemnity was more typical.

Applying the Rule 57.01 factors, including a refused settlement offer, the court awarded a global costs amount reflecting fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage sued the defendant for a commission of $68,506.25 under a Buyer Representation Agreement (BRA) after the defendant purchased a home using another brokerage.

The court found that the BRA had been repudiated by the defendant and that the plaintiff accepted the repudiation by its conduct in failing to provide further services.

Alternatively, the plaintiff repudiated the agreement by failing to assist the defendant in locating a home, which the defendant accepted.

The claim was dismissed.

The moving party (mortgagor) sought leave to redeem a mortgage on a commercial property that was the subject of a foreclosure action, a fraud action, and construction lien actions related to environmental contamination.

The responding party (mortgagee) opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to discontinue its foreclosure claim, arguing the mortgagor was attempting to avoid paying remediation costs and legal fees.

The court granted the mortgagor leave to redeem the mortgage upon payment of the principal, interest, and assessed legal costs, finding that the mortgagee's attempt to discontinue the foreclosure action would unfairly prejudice the mortgagor's equity of redemption.

Following an earlier finding that a defendant knowingly assisted in a cover-up of the truth by failing to ensure production of sales invoices required by court order, the court determined whether that conduct constituted contempt.

The court held that aiding and abetting a breach of a court order can ground contempt and applied the aiding and abetting framework to the defendant's omissions and knowledge.

Unsworn submissions about counsel conflict, lack of intent, and apology did not displace the prior factual findings.

The defendant was held in contempt, with a further hearing directed on the appropriate relief.

This costs endorsement followed a motion in which the plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, was unsuccessful against two corporate defendants.

The court held the defendants were the successful parties under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and entitled to costs, but reduced the amounts sought after balancing fairness, reasonableness, and access to justice considerations.

Although allegations of fraud and misrepresentation had been advanced and not proven, the court declined to award the full amounts claimed and fixed all-inclusive costs at reduced figures.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay both costs awards within 60 days.

The appellants appealed multiple orders and judgments made during a commercial trial that spanned 50 days but was never decided on the merits.

The trial judge had permitted the respondents to add new defendants and causes of action mid-trial, granted an ex parte Mareva injunction, issued 19 directions for massive document production, and found the appellants in contempt for failing to fully comply, ultimately striking their pleadings and granting partial default judgment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the cumulative effect of the trial judge's conduct—including interjections, adverse credibility findings mid-trial, and disproportionate production orders—created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The judgments and orders were set aside, and a new trial was ordered before a different judge.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to transfer her Small Claims Court action against a home builder to the Superior Court of Justice, amend her claim to increase damages, and add a flooring contractor as a defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had deliberately chosen the Small Claims Court forum and that there were no new facts to justify a transfer.

Furthermore, the court held that the proposed new claims and the claim against the new defendant were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff had knowledge of the defects more than two years before seeking to amend her claim.

The plaintiff appealed a master's order dismissing its motion for a court‑imposed discovery plan under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant argued that a discovery plan was necessary to prevent delays and costs arising from refusals and undertakings during examinations for discovery.

The court held that the master applied the correct legal principles and exercised her discretion appropriately, noting that the pleadings were not finalized and that the appellant had made insufficient efforts to reach agreement on a discovery plan with the opposing parties.

The court also confirmed that jurisprudence does not require a master to impose a discovery plan whenever parties cannot agree, but instead grants discretion based on the circumstances.

Finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision regarding a franchise dispute.

They argued that the trial judge erred in deducting rent and related expenses under s. 6(6)(a) of the applicable Act, and in finding that a letter dated May 2, 2007, constituted a five-year franchise agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the damages calculation and concluding that the trial judge's finding regarding the letter was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Costs of $8,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing the action as abandoned.

The dismissal occurred after a notice of intent to defend was served but not filed, and the plaintiff had not received notice from the court that the action would be dismissed.

Applying the principles governing restoration of dismissed actions, the court found the delay negligible and the motion brought promptly, with no demonstrated prejudice to the defendants.

The court reinstated the action but imposed terms validating service on one defendant and providing time for that defendant to bring a motion to strike or to defend.

Issues raised about duplicative proceedings and cause of action estoppel were left to be determined on a future motion.