7 total
The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the plaintiff due to its principal's egregious misconduct but declined to order costs against the principal personally or allow equitable set-off.
The plaintiff's action for $25 million in damages was dismissed in full against all defendants.
This endorsement addresses the defendants' claims for costs.
The court found the plaintiff's principal, Mr. Lagani, engaged in blameworthy conduct, including misleading the court, intimidating witnesses, and making unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, warranting substantial indemnity costs.
The court declined to award costs against Mr. Lagani personally due to lack of jurisdiction and insufficient notice.
The court also rejected the Berczy Group's claim for equitable set-off against funds owed to the plaintiff, stating set-off cannot be used as a "sword" to proactively claim funds.
Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to all defendants.
Frivolous civil action dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 as abuse of process.
The plaintiff commenced a civil action alleging lack of procedural fairness by a regulatory body and seeking compensatory damages.
The court reviewed the statement of claim and written submissions and found the action to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
The court held that the allegations against the regulatory body concerned matters of public law properly challenged through judicial review rather than civil damages proceedings.
Claims against the industry association were also found to be statute-barred and not actionable.
The action was dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing after applicant conceded naming the wrong respondent.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination at an event.
The respondent requested a Summary Hearing, asserting it did not organize the event and was incorrectly named.
At the hearing, the applicant conceded that he had no issues against the named respondent and that the application was filed in error.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting the applicant could file a fresh application against the correct respondent within the one-year limitation period.
Leave to appeal security for costs order denied.
The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order granting multiple defendants security for costs in underlying litigation.
The motion relied on Rule 62.02(4)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and argued that the order would deny access to justice because the plaintiff corporation was impecunious.
The court found the plaintiff failed to demonstrate credible impecuniosity, noting financial records did not account for more than $2 million previously received from expropriation compensation and land sales.
The court held there was no good reason to doubt the correctness of the security for costs order and the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance.
Leave to appeal was therefore refused.
Adjournment request denied where moving parties retained counsel only days before the scheduled hearing.
The moving parties requested an adjournment of the hearing, scheduled to begin in five days, on the basis that they had recently retained counsel who needed time to prepare.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the moving parties had ample time to retain counsel since receiving the Notice of Hearing six months prior.
The Tribunal held that late retention of counsel does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment.
Condominium corporation entitled to repair fire-damaged exterior and roof despite owner’s objection.
A dispute arose following a fire at a heritage house unit within a condominium development regarding who had the right to control and conduct repairs to the damaged structure.
The unit owner sought an interlocutory and final injunction preventing the condominium corporation and insurer from proceeding with repairs and sought a declaration granting him exclusive authority over restoration.
The condominium corporation argued the declaration and condominium governance documents imposed the obligation to repair damage on the corporation and that the owner had failed to act within a reasonable time.
The court interpreted the condominium declaration and held the corporation had the right and obligation to carry out exterior and roof repairs to restore the property, while leaving interior renovation decisions to the unit owner.
The request for injunctive relief was denied and the corporation was authorized to proceed with exterior restoration.
Sex discrimination application regarding soccer association board election dismissed at summary hearing for lacking reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged sex discrimination after being prevented from running for the board of the Essex County Soccer Association because she had not resigned her position with a local soccer club.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to evidence linking the respondents' actions to her sex, and that a single incident of being questioned about her soccer knowledge did not amount to a Code violation.
The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
