Roshni Khemraj

This costs endorsement addresses the aftermath of a motion to amend a statement of claim and related motions to strike in a commercial dispute.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend and dismissed the defendants' motion to strike, with the defendants voluntarily withdrawing an allegation of similar fact evidence.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court awarded only partial indemnity costs, reduced to $10,000, due to the plaintiffs' own conduct and drafting issues that contributed to the need for the motions and adjournments.

The court considered whether the plaintiffs could amend their claim to clarify the involvement of Dunpar Developments Inc. and 1609514 Ontario Inc. in a property transaction, and whether such amendments would constitute an improper withdrawal of admissions.

The court found that the amendments did not withdraw any clear and unambiguous admissions, granted leave to amend, and refused to strike the claim.

The decision reviews the law on admissions in pleadings and the test for granting leave to amend.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The defendants brought separate motions to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed, citing personal hardships and economic challenges as reasons for the delay.

The court found the six-year delay to be inordinate but excusable given the plaintiff's personal circumstances and found insufficient evidence of substantial prejudice to the defendants.

The motions to dismiss were dismissed, and the court imposed a strict timetable for the action to proceed to trial.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a judgment where the action was granted in part, the counterclaim dismissed, and the third-party claim dismissed.

The Plaintiff and Third Party sought costs on a partial indemnity basis up to February 2, 2023, and substantial indemnity thereafter, relying on an offer to settle.

The Defendants failed to submit costs arguments.

The court found the Plaintiff and Third Party were successful and entitled to costs.

Despite potential technical non-compliance with Rule 49.10, the offer to settle's terms were more favourable than the judgment, justifying substantial indemnity from the offer date under Rule 49.13.

The court reduced the quantum sought due to high junior lawyer rates and duplication, ultimately awarding an all-inclusive amount of $115,000.00.

This case involved a dispute between ex-spouses, Kathie Debren (Plaintiff) and Kevin Debren (Defendant), primarily concerning the ownership of a cottage property.

Both parties had a history of fraudulent financial conduct, including sham divorces and bankruptcies with undisclosed assets.

The court found both parties lacked credibility, except for their son, Montana Debren (Third Party), who was drawn into the litigation.

Kevin Debren's counterclaim for beneficial ownership or compensation for property improvements was dismissed due to a lack of credible evidence and the vesting of pre-discharge claims in his trustee in bankruptcy.

Kathie Debren was declared entitled to possession of the cottage, subject to conditions imposed by her trustee in bankruptcy to ensure creditor payment.

Kevin Debren's third-party claim against Montana Debren was also dismissed.

The appellant, a homebuilder, appealed a summary judgment that granted the respondent relief from forfeiture of an $82,916.19 deposit for a home purchase.

The transaction did not close, and the appellant claimed the respondent breached the contract and forfeited the deposit.

The motion judge found it appropriate to relieve the respondent from forfeiture.

The appellant argued the motion judge applied the wrong legal test, asserting that relief from forfeiture is unavailable if the breach was entirely the party's fault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the correct test, as per Redstone Enterprises Ltd. v. Simple Technology Inc., focuses on whether the forfeiture is out of proportion to damages and if retention would be unconscionable, without making the applicant's fault a precondition.

The court upheld the motion judge's findings regarding the parties' sophistication, lack of loss to the vendor, and the appellant's misleading conduct.

The plaintiff brought a post-judgment motion seeking a contempt order and other relief against the defendants for concealing assets and failing to comply with disclosure orders in aid of execution of a judgment for misappropriated funds.

The court found the defendants in contempt under Rule 60.18(5) for deliberately avoiding their obligations by redirecting funds to a spouse's account, opening an undisclosed bank account, and refusing to disclose client receivables.

The court ordered specific steps to purge the contempt, re-attendance at examination, and written questions for the defendant's wife.

The appellant, Chang Jiu Chen, appealed a summary judgment that found his purported rescission of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a condominium unit invalid and constituted an anticipatory breach.

The appellant claimed a "material change" under the Condominium Act, 1998, due to uncompleted amenities (parkette and entry/exit gates).

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, ruling that the uncompleted amenities were statutorily excluded from the definition of "material change" and that the appellant's prior communications demonstrated an unwillingness to close, thus constituting an anticipatory breach.

The court also affirmed a good faith requirement for notices of rescission under the Act.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.