R. Ryan Bell

Following the dismissal of the responding party's urgent motion for breach of fiduciary duty and contempt, and the dismissal of the moving party's cross-motion to remove counsel, the moving party sought partial indemnity costs of $30,019.

The responding party argued for no costs due to divided success or that costs be reserved.

The court found the moving party was the successful party on the substantive issues, which were more complex and important than the removal motion.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs at $24,000 payable by the responding party.

The applicant sought costs of $40,000 on a full recovery basis following successful motions for temporary sole custody and enforcement of minutes of settlement.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by unilaterally terminating access and fabricating abuse allegations shortly after signing the minutes of settlement.

The court awarded the applicant full recovery costs of $40,000, finding the amount proportionate and reasonable given the complexity of the issues and the respondent's conduct.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims of elder abuse and civil fraud, the successful defendants sought their costs of the action.

The court found that the plaintiffs engaged in reprehensible conduct by pursuing baseless allegations of fraud, deceit, and misappropriation against the defendants.

Consequently, the court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs up to the date of trial and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing the total costs award at $100,000.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for a certificate of pending litigation to stop power of sale proceedings, the successful parties sought costs.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the defendants' pursuit of the motion without evidence or pleading of fraud in relation to the mortgages was reprehensible conduct.

The court fixed the costs at $24,500, noting that the amount was fair and reasonable given the urgency and complexity of the inter-related actions.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's subrogated claim for delay under Rule 24.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as more than five years had passed since the action was commenced.

The plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, which included failing to answer undertakings for over three years.

Furthermore, the court found the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice because the oil tank, which was central to determining the cause of the leak, had been destroyed.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action against the Attorney General of Canada and the Ottawa Police Services Board, alleging negligent investigation, harassment, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and Charter breaches arising from alleged ongoing surveillance and the placement of electronic devices in his vehicle and home.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that the plaintiff provided only speculation and bald allegations without evidentiary foundation, while the defendants provided evidence that no such surveillance or investigation occurred.

The court granted the motions for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

The defendants in a motor vehicle collision action brought a third party claim against the Crown (HMQ) for negligent road maintenance.

The defendants moved to compel HMQ to provide documentary and oral discovery.

HMQ argued that the claim was barred by the WSIA and the PTHIA, and that there is no right of discovery against the Crown under the PTHIA.

The court held that s. 33(7) of the PTHIA contemplates discovery rights against the Crown and that HMQ had also voluntarily agreed to discovery.

HMQ was ordered to deliver its list of documents and attend an examination for discovery.

Following the consent resolution of competing guardianship applications, the parties sought costs.

The applicants sought costs against each other, and alternatively against the incapable person's estate.

The court ordered that the incapable person's estate pay the costs of her section 3 counsel, but declined to order costs against the estate for the competing applicants, finding the incapable person derived no benefit from the family dispute.

The court made no order as to costs between the competing applicants, requiring each to bear their own.

The plaintiff, an inmate, brought an action against the Crown and two physicians alleging negligence and medical malpractice resulting in the amputation of his leg.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motions, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff failed to adduce expert medical evidence to support the malpractice claims against the physicians.

The claims against the Crown were dismissed as there was no evidence of the alleged workplace injury, the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and the Crown was not vicariously liable for the independent contractor physicians.

The defendant moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) against the corporate plaintiff.

The court found good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario, as it had sold all its assets and receivables to a non-party.

The plaintiff argued that the non-party purchaser should be permitted to provide an undertaking for costs instead of posting actual security.

The court rejected this argument, distinguishing prior case law, and ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in instalments totaling $38,330.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract and negligence regarding the installation of a video wall system, claiming the system never worked.

The defendant counterclaimed for the unpaid balance of the contract and extra charges, and moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and grant his counterclaim.

The court first granted a misnomer motion to correct the plaintiff's corporate names.

On the merits, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the defendant completed the work, the system functioned properly, and the delays were not the defendant's fault.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and granted summary judgment on the defendant's counterclaim for the unpaid balance and extras.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's oppression application, the successful respondents sought costs of $42,505.20 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for nominal costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date the respondents made a settlement offer, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Due to excessive hours claimed and lack of detailed breakdown, the court reduced the quantum and fixed total costs payable by the applicant at $21,527 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving party, a municipal councillor, sought partial summary judgment to dismiss a counterclaim alleging defamation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, harassment, and abuse of power.

The counterclaim arose from a social media post about the responding party's previously withdrawn and vexatious court application.

The court granted partial summary judgment, finding the defamation claim was defeated by the defences of justification and fair comment.

The remaining claims were dismissed due to a lack of evidence and statutory immunity under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The applicant was successful in an application for the partition and sale of a property held as tenants in common with the respondent.

The court previously ordered the sale and directed a reference to the Master.

In this endorsement, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the applicant.

The applicant sought $12,459.98 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reduced the amount claimed for drafting the notice of application and supporting affidavit due to overlap between counsel and a student-at-law.

Costs were fixed at $11,454.28, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid from the respondent's share of the net proceeds of sale.

The moving party sought to terminate his spousal support and life insurance obligations, arguing that his voluntary retirement at age 56 constituted a material change in circumstances.

The parties had previously executed a separation agreement providing for spousal support for a fixed ten-year period.

The court found that the retirement was voluntary, the moving party retained the capacity to earn income, and the parties had intended for support to continue for the full ten-year term to allow the recipient to plan her financial affairs.

The court concluded there was no material change in circumstances and dismissed the motion.