Robert Reynolds

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motions for summary judgment, the successful plaintiff sought costs of $11,000.

The Condominium defendants argued that costs should not be awarded due to pleading deficiencies or should be in the cause.

The court found that this case fell within the exceptional class of cases where costs in the cause is warranted, as the merits were yet to be adjudicated and the motion materials would be useful at trial.

Costs were ordered in the cause.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for unpaid demurrage charges, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The court declined to defer the costs decision pending a related arbitration between the defendants and a third party.

After considering the complexity of the case, the principle of indemnity, and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court awarded the defendants costs in the amount of $250,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The parties settled the issue of costs following a previous endorsement.

The respondent municipality was ordered to pay the applicant fixed costs in the amount of $20,313.73.

The applicant, who held a registered easement over a property used as a common area by cottagers, sought a declaration to void a municipal tax sale of the property.

The City had proceeded with the sale after the registered owners failed to pay taxes for years.

The applicant argued the City's treasurer failed to exercise his discretion to stop the sale, which would prejudice the cottagers' use of the land.

The court found the treasurer failed to exercise his broad discretion to ensure fairness, rendering the process unreasonable.

The tax sale was declared void, but the court declined to order the City to provide notice of future tax sales to easement holders, as the Municipal Act does not require it.

The plaintiffs moved for default judgment against the defendants for breach of a contract to install roof-mounted solar panels.

The defendants failed to respond to the claim.

The court found that the defendants acted fraudulently by taking the plaintiffs' deposit money and depriving them of expected profits.

The court pierced the corporate veil, holding the individual operating mind jointly liable with the corporate entities.

Default judgment was granted for breach of contract and punitive damages, with a declaration that the judgment survives any bankruptcy.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a representation order under Rule 12.07 to amend the statement of claim, adding the individual defendants as representatives of all members of the defendant trade union.

The defendants argued this would improperly add parties after the expiry of the limitation period.

The court found the motion was an attempt to correct an error in the title of proceedings under Rule 5.04, not to add new parties, as the union had been a party from the outset.

The court granted the representation order, noting the defendants' delay in bringing their own Rule 21 motion and the lack of prejudice.