Robert Trifts

The applicants brought a motion to oppose confirmation of an Assessment Officer's report, effectively appealing the assessment of unpaid legal fees owed to the respondent solicitor.

The applicants argued the Assessment Officer erred by including a second bill, failing to follow precedent regarding complexity, and misapprehending evidence about an earnout provision.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the Assessment Officer properly followed a prior court order, correctly assessed the complexity of the share transaction, and reasonably concluded the applicants were the authors of their own misfortune regarding the earnout provision.

Costs of $12,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The defendants sought costs following the plaintiff’s agreement to vacate certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) that had been obtained ex parte against their properties.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure when obtaining the CPLs and that the defendants were therefore entitled to costs of the motion to vacate.

While the defendants requested full indemnity costs exceeding $74,000, the court held that the plaintiff’s conduct did not reach the egregious level required for full indemnity and instead justified substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 and the indemnity principle, the court fixed reasonable fees at $35,000 plus HST and disbursements.

Costs were ordered payable within 30 days.

Following the appointment of a receiver over corporate defendants’ books and records in a commercial dispute involving alleged fraud and breach of agreements, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $298,000, including substantial disbursements for forensic accounting services.

The defendants challenged the reasonableness of the fees and argued certain expert-related disbursements were not recoverable.

The court held that detailed cost outlines rather than docket production were sufficient, emphasized that costs must be fair and reasonable to the unsuccessful party under Rule 57.01(1), and confirmed that expert forensic accounting fees were recoverable.

Costs were fixed at $180,000 plus HST for fees and $67,566.14 for disbursements, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.