Robert J. Maki

Following a prior endorsement, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The plaintiff submitted a Costs Outline, which the defendant/plaintiffs by counterclaim did not dispute.

The court ordered the defendant/plaintiffs by counterclaim to pay the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $4,778.03, to be paid within 30 days.

The plaintiff, London Eco-Roof Manufacturing Inc., brought a motion to strike the statement of defence and dismiss the counterclaim of South River Developments Ltd. and Les Holdway due to their repeated failure to comply with court orders, specifically an order to deliver an affidavit of documents.

The court considered the balance between resolving disputes on their merits and ensuring timely and efficient administration of justice.

While acknowledging the defendants' non-compliance, the court found it was not contumelious and that the affidavit of documents had been sworn, albeit late, due to counsel's error.

The motion to strike was dismissed, but the defendants were granted a "last chance order" with new peremptory deadlines for discovery, undertakings, and a pre-trial, and were ordered to pay costs.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the Applicant's request for leave to commence an action against the Respondents.

The court assessed the costs payable by the Applicant to the successful Respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the reasonableness of two separate sets of costs, duplication of legal work by multiple lawyers of similar call years, and the hourly rates and disbursements claimed.

The court reduced the costs sought by Centennial College and the individual Respondents due to concerns about duplication and excessive disbursements, while approving the costs sought by the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Applicant, a vexatious litigant, was ordered to pay costs, and his approval of the costs order's form and content was waived.

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, sought leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to commence an action against a college, its employees, the police, and the Attorney General.

The proposed action related to his expulsion from a paralegal program and subsequent arrest for uttering threats.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed pleading was defective, lacked an evidentiary basis, and constituted an abuse of process as an attempt to re-litigate a final college decision.

The court noted the applicant's history of bringing meritless proceedings and his failure to pay over $73,000 in outstanding costs orders.