Samantha Green

Following a decision granting Brewers Retail's motion for security for costs and Chill Media's motion to late file expert reports, the court determined the costs of the motions.

Brewers Retail sought costs of $18,864.93, while Chill Media argued for divided success and partial indemnity costs of $6,339.

The court found Brewers Retail to be the successful party, as Chill Media was seeking an indulgence to vary a previous order.

The court awarded Brewers Retail its requested costs of $18,864.93, payable in any event of the cause but not forthwith, to avoid frustrating the plaintiff's ability to prosecute its claim.

The plaintiffs, two physicians with prominent professional roles, brought a defamation action arising from malicious internet websites created by the defendant that falsely accused them of criminal conduct and professional misconduct.

After the defendant ceased participating in the litigation and his defence was struck, the plaintiffs sought default judgment and damages.

The court held that the publications were intentionally designed to harm the plaintiffs' professional reputations and were entirely false.

Applying principles governing defamation damages, including those articulated in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia, the court found substantial reputational harm caused through internet dissemination.

Each plaintiff was awarded $150,000 in general damages and the defendant was ordered to pay $50,000 in punitive damages, together with costs.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff bank succeeded in obtaining judgment against one defendant for fraud and under a personal guarantee, the court addressed competing claims for costs.

The bank sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $600,000, while certain defendants who successfully defended fraud allegations sought substantial indemnity costs for both trial and a prior Mareva injunction motion.

The court found that the bank had overstated and pursued broad allegations of fraud despite prior judicial warnings, unnecessarily lengthening the litigation.

Costs were therefore limited to partial indemnity and further reduced under Rule 57 for litigation conduct.

After applying equitable set‑off against costs awarded to two defendants, the court ordered one defendant to pay net costs to the bank.