Robert N. Beaudoin

The Plaintiffs, having succeeded on a motion for partial summary judgment, sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis.

The Defendants failed to file responding materials to either the summary judgment motion or the costs submissions, and had previously failed to comply with court-imposed terms.

The Plaintiffs argued for full indemnity costs due to the Defendants' failure to concede a clear claim and alleged fraud.

The court, applying Rule 57.01, found insufficient evidence of fraud but sanctioned the Defendants for their litigation conduct, including forcing the motion and delaying the matter.

The court fixed the Plaintiffs' all-inclusive costs at $20,000, reducing the requested amount due to unrecoverable legal research and the perceived lack of justification for two counsel.

The offender was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm after striking two cyclists on the shoulder of the road.

The court found the offender engaged in a prolonged pattern of dangerous driving, including speeding, tailgating, and driving while prohibited.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to four years' imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently, along with a lifetime driving prohibition.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's request for leave to assess a solicitor's account, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $7,738.41.

The applicant argued for a lower amount based on proportionality and its own costs outline of $1,899.81.

The court found the applicant's outline did not reflect what a losing party could expect to pay given the extensive record and serious allegations raised.

The court awarded the respondent costs in the all-inclusive amount of $5,000.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm and death after his vehicle struck a group of cyclists standing on the shoulder of the road.

The court found that the accused engaged in a pattern of dangerous driving, including tailgating, excessive speed, and failing to pay attention to his surroundings.

The court rejected the accused's testimony that he was forced to make a split-second decision to avoid a collision, finding instead that his driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for possession of lands and payment on a defaulted vendor take-back mortgage.

The defendant opposed the motion, claiming equitable set-off based on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the property's condition.

The court found that the defendant was estopped from raising this defence because the plaintiff had previously obtained an unchallenged default judgment in Small Claims Court regarding a deposit for the same property.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion for costs thrown away and security for costs after the plaintiff failed to attend a unilaterally scheduled mediation.

The plaintiff had been deported from Canada and had no assets in Ontario.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel acted disrespectfully by concealing the plaintiff's unavailability for mediation, awarding costs thrown away.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs, finding his evidence of impecuniosity unreliable and his underlying claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of insurance contract almost certain to fail.

The applicant subtenant sought leave under the Solicitors Act to assess a legal account rendered by the respondent law firm to the landlord.

The applicant had agreed to pay the landlord's legal fees as part of a settlement to transfer the lease after defaulting on rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the application, finding no special circumstances to justify an assessment, as the account was not exorbitant and the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement that required full payment of the legal fees.

Following a successful Application for Directions regarding an arbitration, the applicant sought costs of $11,743.35 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondents argued for divided success and sought their own costs.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful on the substantive issues and that the respondents' actions had unnecessarily complicated and delayed the arbitration.

The court awarded costs to the applicant fixed at $9,000 payable forthwith.

The plaintiff, who had pre-existing disabilities including hydrocephalus and kyphoscoliosis, suffered paraparesis after the defendant radiologists punctured his heart during a filter removal procedure.

Liability was admitted, and the trial proceeded as an assessment of damages.

The defendants argued the 'crumbling skull' doctrine applied, suggesting the plaintiff would have become wheelchair-bound regardless of their negligence.

The court rejected this argument, finding no cogent evidence to support it.

The court awarded substantial damages, including $250,000 in general damages for the plaintiff, $90,000 each to his parents for loss of care, guidance, and companionship, over $1.5 million for past attendant care, and over $5.7 million for future care costs, subject to a 15% negative contingency.

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiff's claim against the board member defendants, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The defendants sought $15,784.88 for the motion and the action to date, while the plaintiff argued for $7,000.

The court awarded the defendants $10,490 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, finding that while the defendants' claimed hours for research were high, they were entitled to costs for both the motion and the action.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals for impaired driving and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

At trial, the judge excluded breath samples and police observations under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding a section 8 breach because the arresting officer lacked subjective grounds to arrest for impaired driving.

The trial judge also found the officer's testimony attempting to justify the arrest was misleading, which exacerbated the seriousness of the breach.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's factual findings regarding the officer's lack of subjective grounds and misleading testimony were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The Crown appealed a lower court's decision to stay proceedings against the respondent for unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial judge had stayed the proceedings after a mid-trial family emergency caused an adjournment, attributing the subsequent delay to the Crown's failure to consent to a "mistrial" or continuation before another judge.

The Superior Court found that the trial judge erred in law by misattributing the delay, as the judge's emergency was an exceptional circumstance, and neither striking a "not guilty" plea nor continuing the trial before a new judge was a legally available option once evidence had been heard.

The court emphasized that an adjournment was the only permissible remedy.

The appeal was granted, and a new trial is ordered.

The applicant, the Mayor of Hawkesbury, sought an interlocutory stay of a municipal council decision regarding potential sanctions following an Integrity Commissioner's report finding she breached the Code of Conduct.

She also sought a sealing order for certain documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, noting the statutory requirement that such reports be made public.

The request for a sealing order was also dismissed.

This decision addresses a costs dispute arising from the plaintiff's initiation of multiple proceedings that were subsequently consolidated.

The defendants, Carleton University and Urban Security and Resilience Corp., sought costs thrown away due to the duplicative actions, arguing the plaintiff could have avoided multiplicity by adding parties to the initial action under Rule 5.04(2).

The plaintiff contended that the defendants' claims for costs were unsubstantiated and that the role of one defendant was an ongoing issue.

The court found that the plaintiff's multiple proceedings were avoidable and awarded each defendant $500 in costs thrown away, payable in any event of the cause, noting that the duplicative nature might also be considered by a Master in future costs assessments.

The offender was found guilty of sexual assault after raping the victim at a university party while she was intoxicated.

The court considered the offender's prior criminal record, lack of remorse, and the severe impact on the victim.

The offender was sentenced to 3 years and 10 months in custody, along with a DNA order, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The applicant grandparents sought summary judgment for final sole custody of their grandson, who had been living with them since March 2018 following a traumatic incident involving the respondent mother.

The mother opposed the motion but failed to provide evidence of a stable housing or parenting plan.

Relying on the uncontested report of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and finding no genuine issue for trial, the court granted sole custody to the grandparents and ordered access for the mother.

The plaintiff condominium owner sued the condominium corporation and its individual board members for construction deficiencies and alleged negligence in their decision-making.

The board members moved to strike the claims against them, and the plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court struck the claims against the individual directors without leave to amend, finding that the pleadings failed to differentiate the directors' actions from those of the corporation.

The court held that directors cannot be held personally liable for decisions made in their capacity as the directing minds of the corporation absent allegations of independent tortious conduct or a separate identity of interest.

The plaintiffs brought a motion during a damages trial to exclude the evidence of the defendants' expert physiatrist, Dr. Anthony Burns.

The plaintiffs argued the expert's evidence was unreliable, biased, and failed to meet the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the White Burgess test.

The court found that the expert relied heavily on a chronology prepared by defence counsel rather than source documents, failed to review the complete medical file, and altered his opinion without proper notice.

The court concluded the expert failed in his duty to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan evidence, and excluded his testimony in its entirety.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully obtaining summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs argued their conduct was reasonable and that costs should be limited.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' conduct did not warrant it and that the case raised an important legal question regarding limitation periods.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

The plaintiffs, who suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to strike the jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to adjourn the trial because the pandemic interfered with their ability to obtain responding medical reports.

The court granted the adjournment for six months to allow the defendants to obtain their medical assessments.

However, the court also struck the jury notice, finding that the indefinite delay of jury trials would cause undue financial prejudice to the plaintiffs, whose accident benefits were nearly exhausted.