R. Thapar

The defendant brought a third motion to dismiss the action for delay, which was dismissed on terms with an expedited timetable.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion on a partial indemnity scale, while the defendant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found that although the defendant was unsuccessful, it was not unreasonable to bring the motion given the 15-year history of the action and previous judicial criticism of the plaintiff's delay.

The court ordered the parties to bear their own costs.

The defendant estate brought a third motion to dismiss the plaintiff's 15-year-old action for delay.

The plaintiff seeks a declaration of beneficial ownership of a property.

The court focused on the delay subsequent to the second dismissal motion in 2017.

The court found that the delay since 2017 was not intentional, contumelious, or inordinate, and was largely explained by the original defendant's death and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found that a fair trial remained possible because the action overlapped significantly with an ongoing application by the estate, and much of the evidence was preserved through affidavits and discovery transcripts.

The motion to dismiss was denied, but strict terms were imposed to move the action to trial.

The plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity basis following the resolution of two actions involving a loan for a car rental business.

The plaintiff had previously obtained a Mareva injunction and Norwich Orders after the defendants allegedly misappropriated the loaned funds.

The court found that the defendants engaged in reprehensible conduct by breaching court orders and attempting to resile from an agreement that the injunctions were properly granted.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity scale, but reduced the quantum to account for duplicative counsel, unrelated claims, and the appearance that resulted in the settlement.

Costs were apportioned between the two sets of defendants.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim at trial, the successful defendants sought costs of $75,000.

The court found that the plaintiff had unreasonably pursued a meritless case, provided tailored evidence, and rejected an offer to settle that would have resulted in a dismissal without costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and Rule 49, the court awarded the defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a successful motion for leave to amend a statement of defence and counterclaim, the moving party sought substantial indemnity costs.

The opposing party had argued the amendments were statute-barred and legally untenable.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for rare cases involving reprehensible conduct or where an offer to settle justifies such an award, neither of which was present.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis and reduced the claimed time by disallowing duplicative counsel time.

Costs of $5,000 plus disbursements and HST were awarded.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for failure to satisfy prior costs orders totaling more than $45,000 and for delay in prosecuting the action.

The plaintiff, through her granddaughter acting under an alleged power of attorney, asserted medical incapacity and financial hardship as reasons for non‑payment and delay.

The court found the evidence supporting impecuniosity and incapacity weak, contradictory, and largely unsupported, noting property transfers to family members and a lengthy history of delay and procedural default.

While recognizing that striking a claim is a drastic remedy, the court held the plaintiff had failed to justify her non‑compliance and lack of progress.

The court granted the plaintiff a final opportunity to pay the outstanding costs and comply with discovery obligations, failing which the defendant could seek dismissal.

The plaintiff sought costs thrown away after the defendant failed to attend a scheduled examination for discovery.

The defendant argued that preparation time was not wasted as it could be used for the rescheduled examination, and that counsel should not have attended because notice of non-attendance was given.

The court discounted the preparation time slightly but allowed the attendance costs, noting it was appropriate to obtain a certificate of non-attendance.

The court awarded the plaintiff $1,446.40 in costs thrown away.