R. Simmons

Following a jury verdict in a defamation and intrusion upon seclusion action, the plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a Sanderson order requiring the unsuccessful defendant to pay the costs previously awarded to two successful co-defendants who had been dismissed on summary judgment.

The court considered the governing test from Moore (Litigation Guardian of) v. Wienecke and found the threshold requirement was not met because the plaintiffs had no evidentiary basis to join the successful defendants when the action was commenced.

The court further held that even if the threshold were met, a Sanderson order would not be appropriate given the risk that the unsuccessful defendant lacked the means to satisfy the costs award.

However, relying on prior findings that the unsuccessful defendant had ensnared the successful defendants in the litigation, the court granted a Bullock order permitting the plaintiffs to recover from that defendant the costs previously awarded to the successful defendants.

Costs of the motion were awarded against the plaintiffs.

Following a civil trial in which the plaintiff obtained a modest damages award but failed on most claims, the parties made written submissions regarding costs.

The plaintiff sought costs in excess of $8,700, but the submissions and bills of costs were inconsistent and difficult to interpret.

The court considered its discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the principles in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Taking into account the partial success at trial, the confusing documentation, and the circumstances of the parties, the court awarded reduced costs inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

A tenant brought an action against a housing co‑operative alleging negligence arising from long‑standing maintenance deficiencies, including mould contamination, and the removal and loss of her personal property during remediation work.

The court found that the co‑operative failed to maintain the unit in a habitable condition and failed to complete remediation and restoration within a reasonable time.

The court further found that the co‑operative improperly required the tenant to remove the contents of the unit and failed to safeguard and return the property after it was removed.

Claims for general, aggravated, and punitive damages were rejected for lack of evidence.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the loss of personal property and reimbursement of certain payments.