Roy Tofilovski

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a successful motion by the defendant.

The court considers the timing of the defendant’s costs submissions, the scale of costs (partial vs. substantial indemnity), the effect of offers to settle, and the conduct of the parties.

The court ultimately awards the defendant $20,490 in costs, finding no basis for a higher scale and that the amount is reasonable and proportionate.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the automobile defendants for damages under the Family Law Act arising from a motor vehicle accident that injured his mother.

He also sued his mother's former lawyers in the alternative for failing to advance his claim in the original tort action.

The automobile defendants crossclaimed against the lawyer defendants for contribution and indemnity.

The plaintiff moved to discontinue his claim against the lawyer defendants, which was granted.

The lawyer defendants moved to strike the crossclaim.

The court struck the crossclaim without leave to amend, finding that the lawyer defendants and automobile defendants were not concurrent tortfeasors who caused the same damage, and therefore no right of contribution and indemnity existed under the Negligence Act.

The appellants, Michael Taylor and The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, appealed a judgment declining to enforce a settlement in a motor vehicle accident action.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding the enforcement of a settlement under Rule 49.09.

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

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a $125,000 settlement agreement in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing she never instructed her former counsel to accept the offer and that she suffered from psychological impairments that affected her ability to provide informed consent.

The court found that the communications between the plaintiff and her former counsel lacked clarity, particularly regarding the net amount the plaintiff would receive.

Given the plaintiff's documented chronic pain and psychological impairments, the court concluded that enforcing the settlement would create a real risk of clear injustice.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendants, Balance Residential Management Limited and Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation 2514, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss various claims made by the plaintiff, 1658410 Ontario Inc. (Advance Repairs & Maintenance), following the termination of a janitorial services agreement.

The plaintiff's claims included damages for lack of notice, unpaid invoices, interest, general damages for breach of contract, loss of business reputation, employee poaching, property damage, slander, and breach of a verbal contract for future services.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff only on the claims for 30 days' notice, unpaid invoices, and associated interest, which the defendants conceded.

All other claims, including those for general damages, employee poaching, slander, and breach of a verbal contract for another condominium, were dismissed as not raising a genuine issue requiring a trial, often due to contractual liability limitations or insufficient evidence.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings at the beginning of trial, alleging that his Charter section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The charge was a sexual assault arising from an alleged inappropriate touching of a patient's breast by the accused, who was an assistant to a physiotherapist at a rehabilitation clinic.

The overall delay from charge to trial was approximately 15 months.

The court applied the Morin framework and found that the delay was reasonable given the nature of the charge, the number of anticipated witnesses, and the complexity of the case.

The application for a stay was dismissed.