3 total
The court confirmed its original costs award after finding the respondent's late submissions unhelpful.
This addendum to a costs endorsement confirmed an earlier ruling granting costs to the applicant.
The respondent had failed to file cost submissions by the initial deadline, leading to the original endorsement.
After it was discovered the respondent had not received the initial ruling, a temporary stay on the cost award was issued, and the respondent was given a new deadline to file submissions.
Upon reviewing the respondent's submissions, which largely reiterated arguments from the underlying injunction motion and sought no costs, the court found them unhelpful and was not convinced to revise the original cost ruling.
The temporary stay was lifted, and the original cost endorsement was confirmed.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs for an interim injunction, declining substantial indemnity despite the respondent's vulgarity.
This is a costs endorsement following an interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the applicant.
The applicant sought substantial or partial indemnity costs.
The respondent failed to file cost submissions.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs, rejecting the applicant's claim for elevated costs due to the absence of reprehensible conduct by the respondent, despite a vulgar remark made by the respondent.
The court clarified that the costs awarded were specifically for the interim motion, not the entire application, and adjusted the applicant's bill of costs by attributing only relevant legal services and disbursements to the motion.
The court granted an interlocutory injunction allowing a commercial tenant to re-enter the premises.
The applicant sought an interim injunction under the Commercial Tenancies Act for immediate access to leased premises, to restrain the respondent from re-entry, and to register the lease on title.
The court granted the injunction for re-entry and restraining the respondent, finding the applicant met the test for interlocutory injunctions, including a serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.
The respondent's allegations of lease breaches were vague and unsupported.
However, the court declined to permit registration of the lease on title, as the parties had agreed against it in the lease, and the order's intent was to restore the status quo.