Robert Ruddock

This is a costs decision following the court's grant of leave to commence a derivative action under s. 246 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The applicant sought to bring proceedings on behalf of two corporations against their directors for breach of fiduciary duties and duties of care relating to excessive compensation.

The applicant sought costs against the respondent directors on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondents argued for no costs or significantly reduced costs, citing divided success and adverse findings regarding the applicant's own conduct.

The court reserved costs to the trial judge, finding that the trial judge would be best positioned to assess costs of the entirety of the proceedings and the parties' conduct.

The applicant sought leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of two closely held companies (Cen-Ta Real Estate Ltd. and Plum Financial Group Inc.) against the companies' directors for breach of fiduciary duties and duties of care.

The applicant alleged that the directors awarded themselves and their personal companies unreasonable and unfair compensation despite the companies' declining revenues and financial losses.

The respondent directors opposed the application, arguing the applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory statutory preconditions under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, specifically that the applicant was not acting in good faith and the proposed action was not in the interests of the corporations.

The court granted leave for the derivative action, finding that the applicant satisfied all requirements under the Act, was acting in good faith, and the action was in the interests of the corporations.

The court ordered that the applicant and corporations share legal costs equally.

This decision concerns a status hearing in a civil action for damages for sexual assault.

The plaintiff, A.B., was required to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay.

The court found that A.B. provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, primarily due to the parties' agreement to await the completion of related criminal proceedings and the production of Wagg documents before proceeding with discoveries.

The court also found that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action continued.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The Royal Bank of Canada sought summary judgment against the defendants, Bibi Fehmidah Etwaree and Bye Nasrullah Etwaree, for outstanding credit card and overdraft debts, and dismissal of their counterclaim.

The defendants opposed the motion, sought dismissal of the plaintiff's action, and leave to amend their counterclaim.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the interest rates on credit cards and the reasons for the overdrafts, citing insufficient and inconsistent evidence from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action was also dismissed, but they were granted leave to amend their counterclaim.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a claim for lien and certificate of action, and for security for costs.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion.

The court ordered the claim for lien and certificate of action discharged as they were registered late.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the amount of $27,500.

The plaintiff was granted leave to maintain the action under the Business Names Act.

Costs of the motions were awarded to the defendants in the amount of $15,000.