Robert Wilfred Walter Dowhan

Following summary judgment dismissing the action, the successful defendant sought costs of both the motion and the action.

The plaintiffs argued hardship and novelty, submitting that no Canadian court had previously considered the title insurance coverages in issue.

The court held that while costs generally follow the result, costs remain discretionary.

Exercising that discretion, the court declined to award costs because the matter was substantially a case of first impression.

Homeowners moved for summary judgment seeking coverage under a title insurance policy after discovering that load‑bearing walls had been removed during prior renovations, rendering the home structurally unsafe.

The municipality issued an order requiring temporary shoring under the Building Code Act, 1992, but no permanent remediation order was made and no order was registered on title.

The court held that the title insurance policy insured risks affecting ownership of title rather than the physical condition or market value of the property.

Because the municipal order did not affect title and was not registered on title, the claimed remediation costs were not covered.

The court also held that where no genuine issue requiring trial exists, the court may grant summary judgment against the moving party even if the responding party did not seek it.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the applicants’ entire action.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a request for an order during proceedings to amend the style of cause, arguing that its Board of Directors is not a legal entity and cannot be named as a respondent.

The Tribunal agreed and ordered the style of cause amended to name the condominium corporation itself.

The Tribunal also considered whether individual board members should be added as personal respondents.

Applying the Smyth and Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to add the individuals, as the corporation accepted vicarious liability for their actions and the applicant conceded she had no evidence against them personally.

The defendants and an added party sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order permitting the plaintiff to add additional defendants to an action despite the expiry of the limitation period.

The moving parties argued the order conflicted with other jurisprudence and raised issues of general importance concerning the effect of limitation periods on motions to add parties.

The court held that the decision under appeal properly followed binding Divisional Court authority holding that the relevant date for limitation purposes is the service of the motion to add a party, not the date the motion is argued.

Finding no conflicting authority, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issue of general importance, the court refused leave to appeal.

Four employees commenced wrongful dismissal actions after being terminated without reasonable notice or payment in lieu.

The actions were settled, but the parties were unable to agree on costs, leaving the court to determine responsibility and quantum.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles articulated in leading appellate authority on costs, the court assessed factors including indemnity, proportionality, hourly rates, hours spent, complexity, conduct of the parties, and reasonable expectations regarding costs liability.

The court found the employees were the successful parties and entitled to partial indemnity costs.

The defendant’s conduct did not justify elevated costs, but also did not warrant depriving the employees of their presumptive entitlement.

The court awarded each employee $8,000 in partial indemnity costs inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to set aside a default judgment.

She argued the judgment was signed irregularly before the 20-day service period elapsed and that she had a defence on the merits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the judgment was signed irregularly, the appellant suffered no prejudice, and relief against the irregularity was granted under Rule 2.01.

Furthermore, the appellant had no defence on the merits as it was undisputed she received $600,000 from the sale of her property.

The appellants, former directors of a condominium corporation, appealed two costs decisions that ordered them to personally pay costs for an unsuccessful injunction motion and an administration application they initiated on behalf of the corporation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal regarding the injunction motion, finding the motion judge erred by failing to apply the 'man of straw' test for awarding costs against non-parties.

However, the court dismissed the appeal regarding the administration application, finding the application judge correctly applied the test, properly found the directors acted in bad faith, and afforded procedural fairness.

The costs for the injunction motion were redirected to the condominium corporation.

A condominium corporation brought an application under ss. 117, 119 and 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998 alleging that occupants of a unit engaged in aggressive, threatening, and disruptive conduct toward other residents, contractors, and condominium staff.

Evidence included affidavits from unit holders and correspondence describing confrontational and verbally abusive behaviour by an occupant of the unit.

The respondents argued mediation was required under s. 132 of the Act, but the court held mediation was not mandatory where statutory breaches were alleged.

The court found the evidence, including admissions in the respondents’ own materials, demonstrated confrontational and abusive behaviour inconsistent with the condominium’s declaration and rules.

The court granted orders requiring the occupant to keep the peace, cease abusive conduct, avoid certain individuals, and requiring the unit owner to ensure compliance with condominium rules.

Following judgment in a residential construction dispute, the successful homeowners sought a costs award of over $26,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The builder argued it achieved greater success because most of the claims were dismissed and only a small portion of the damages sought was awarded.

The court noted the modest damages award fell well within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court and that the matter could have proceeded under the Simplified Procedure rules after the lien action settled.

The court also found several claims advanced by the homeowners lacked merit and unnecessarily lengthened the trial.

Exercising its discretion under Rule 57.05 and Rule 76.13(3), the court ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Homeowners pursued a cross-claim against a modular home builder alleging numerous construction deficiencies following completion of a custom home under an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and subsequent amending agreements.

The court assessed allegations relating to stair staining, concrete drainage, HVAC zoning and dampers, hot water systems, UV water treatment units, flashing, roof workmanship, and contractual obligations under a Homeowner Ultimate Guarantee (HUG) certificate.

Most alleged deficiencies were dismissed due to lack of expert evidence or contractual support.

However, the court found a concrete slope deficiency and incomplete copper flashing and interpreted the HUG certificate as guaranteeing completion of listed items within a specified timeframe.

Damages were limited due to the homeowners’ duty to mitigate, resulting in reduced penalty compensation.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing sought to add her condominium corporation's property manager and lawyers as respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the property manager, finding the applicant made allegations that could support a Code violation regarding day-to-day management.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the lawyers, noting that the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party does not fall within the social areas covered by the Code.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to add new allegations of discrimination regarding condominium common areas and parking, to increase the remedy sought, and to add the condominium's property manager and lawyers as respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, finding the new allegations were related to the original narrative and the amendment would not unduly prejudice the respondent.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to add the proposed respondents, as the applicant failed to provide specific allegations or facts that could support a finding that they violated the Human Rights Code.

The plaintiff brought a motion under rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to add a former employee and a corporation as defendants after the expiry of the two‑year limitation period.

The motion to add one proposed defendant had been served within the limitation period but was adjourned and not argued until after the limitation period expired.

The court held that a motion to add a party need only be served within the limitation period; it need not also be argued and determined before the limitation period expires.

With respect to the corporate defendant, the issue of discoverability was a question of fact and the plaintiff was permitted to add the corporation with leave for the defendants to plead the Limitations Act.

The motion to add both parties was granted subject to procedural timelines.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff’s oppression-style claim against a condominium corporation was dismissed, the court determined costs.

The defendant condominium corporation sought full indemnity costs, arguing that condominium litigation typically warrants such recovery and that the plaintiff made serious but unproven allegations of dishonesty.

The court held that the enhanced full-indemnity regime under s.134 of the Condominium Act applies only to compliance order proceedings and not to an oppression claim under s.135.

Nevertheless, the court found that the plaintiff’s unsubstantiated allegations of deceit and dishonesty against the corporation and its directors justified elevated costs.

Costs of the action and trial were therefore awarded on a substantial indemnity basis, with quantification referred to assessment if the parties could not agree.

A condominium unit owner challenged the condominium corporation’s decision to replace garage roof decks and impose special assessments to fund the work, alleging the project constituted a substantial alteration to common elements requiring approval under s.97(4) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and seeking oppression remedies under s.135.

The court held the work constituted repair and maintenance of common elements within s.97(1), undertaken using materials reasonably close in quality to the original in accordance with modern construction standards.

As such, the project was not a substantial alteration requiring owner approval.

The evidence also failed to establish oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly disregarding conduct by the corporation.

The corporation was entitled to levy special assessments and enforce payment through a lien.

Following disposition of an application concerning condominium governance and alleged oppression, the court determined costs.

Although the applicant obtained a remedial order requiring the condominium corporation to comply with governance requirements under the Condominium Act, 1998, the central oppression claim concerning outdoor storage in common elements was unsuccessful.

The court found the respondents were largely successful and entitled to partial indemnity costs.

However, their costs were reduced to reflect the remedial governance order obtained at the instance of the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $12,288.48 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

Following a successful condominium compliance application under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998, the court addressed costs.

The condominium corporation sought full indemnity costs exceeding $18,000, while the unit owner’s estate sought costs against the corporation after certain eviction-related relief was abandoned at the hearing.

The court held that although condominium corporations are often awarded full indemnity costs in compliance proceedings, the applicant did not achieve complete success due to the late abandonment of significant claims.

The estate was not entitled to costs because it failed to investigate complaints regarding its tenant’s conduct.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded against both respondents jointly and severally.

Following dismissal of summary judgment motions brought by certain defendants, the court addressed costs.

Although the plaintiff and a defendant successfully opposed the motions, the court found the issues were close calls and that it had not been unreasonable for the moving defendants to bring the motions.

Substantial or elevated indemnity costs were rejected as no reprehensible misconduct was established.

Applying the reasonableness factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed partial indemnity costs for both successful parties and ordered that those costs be payable in the cause.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside a default judgment sounding in fraud and negligence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's application of the test for setting aside a default judgment.

Although the first two branches of the test may have been satisfied, the appellant failed to establish any arguable defence on the merits to either the fraud or negligence claims.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,000.

Following a successful application declaring a right of way over the respondent’s property and directing rectification of the land register, the court addressed costs after the parties failed to agree.

The applicants sought partial indemnity costs of $13,766.20.

The responding parties argued no costs should be awarded or, alternatively, that the amount claimed was excessive given the limited complexity of the matter.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court reduced the amount claimed due to excessive time entries and costs unrelated to the opposing respondents.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed at $9,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.