Skip to main content

minicounsel

Legal Resources Directory

/2486

/SCJ/2015/2486

4361814 Canada Inc. v. Dalcor Inc., 2015 ONSC 2486 — SCJ | minicounsel | minicounsel

April 15, 2015|Cited 5x

4361814 Canada Inc. v. Dalcor Inc., 2015 ONSC 2486

Case Summary

Following the dismissal of Unimac's motion seeking the recusal of the Master on grounds of racial bias, the responding parties sought costs. Unimac argued costs should be deferred to the Divisional Court pending judicial review. The Master determined it was appropriate to fix costs immediately. Finding that Unimac's motion was an abuse of process, involved scurrilous and unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of the judicial officer, caused unnecessary delay, and that Unimac failed to accept a reasonable offer to settle, the Master awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale. Unimac was ordered to pay $52,810.37 to the Lead Respondents and $6,728.30 to St. Clare's.

CITATION: 4361814 Canada Inc.v Dalcor inc., Unimac-United, 2015 ONSC 2486

and Unimac-United v St. Clare’s-Monaco Place

and 2063889 Ontario Ltd. v Unimac-United

COURT FILE NOS.: CV-11-441381, CV-12-443991 and CV-12-446927

DATE: April 15, 2015

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: 4361814 Canada Inc. v Dalcor Inc. et al¹

AND RE: Unimac-United Management Corp. v St. Clare’s-Monaco Place²

AND RE: 2063889 Ontario Ltd. v Unimac-United Management Corp.³

BEFORE: MASTER CAROL ALBERT

COUNSEL APPEARING:

R. Centa for responding parties 2295091 Ontario, 2063889 Ontario and Dalcor

tel: 416-646 4300; fax: 416-646-4301

P. Sarin for responding party St. Clare’s, tel: 416 598 0103 Ext. 135; fax: 416-598-3484

J. Baichoo for lien claimant and defendant Unimac,

Cited By (5 cases)

SCJSuperior Court of JusticeJan 23, 2023

Superior Court of Justice

Superior Court of Justice

Injunction Motion dismissed

The plaintiff, Sabrina Homes Inc. (Buyer), brought a motion for leave to register Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an interlocutory injunction against properties owned by the defendants (Seller).

The court dismissed the motion, finding it constituted an abuse of process as it sought to relitigate issues previously determined by Justice Ramsay.

Alternatively, the court found the Buyer failed to satisfy the test for a CPL, specifically regarding the uniqueness of the property and the adequacy of damages as a remedy.

The balance of harm favored the Seller, who faced potential breach of contract and foreclosure if the CPL was granted.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the Seller.

Sabrina Homes Inc. v. 2786966 Ontario Inc., 2023 ONSC 558

SCJSuperior Court of JusticeNov 25, 2022

Superior Court of Justice

Superior Court of Justice

Substantial indemnity costs of $12,000 awarded to defendant after successfully striking plaintiff's claim as abuse of process.

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim as an abuse of process, the defendant sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court noted the defendant's initial failure to file a costs outline but accepted the late submission under Rule 57.01(5).

Given the finding of abuse of process and the plaintiff's failure to heed prior judicial warnings about the claim being a collateral attack on a criminal conviction, the court awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs fixed at $12,000.

Buffone v. Bryant, 2022 ONSC 6625

SCJSuperior Court of JusticeMay 21, 2020

Superior Court of Justice

Superior Court of Justice

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the plaintiffs for breaching a minor's confidentiality order.

The plaintiffs filed affidavits containing confidential information about a minor child (Student Q) and her family, breaching a prior confidentiality order (Penny Order).

The defendants and Student Q's family successfully moved to have these affidavits removed/redacted.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct reprehensible and deserving of reprimand, rejecting their arguments of inadvertence and access to justice without evidence of impecuniosity.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to Student Q's family, and reduced costs to the defendants, totaling $41,633.44, payable by the plaintiffs.

Rogerson v. Havergal, 2020 ONSC 3172

SCJSuperior Court of JusticeMay 21, 2020

Superior Court of Justice

Superior Court of Justice

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated recusal motion.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for recusal of the case management judge.

The plaintiffs alleged actual and perceived bias, which the court found to be unsubstantiated.

The defendants sought substantial or partial indemnity costs for their opposition to the recusal motion.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs, finding their participation necessary and appropriate, and rejected the plaintiffs' arguments for no costs based on access to justice or financial hardship without evidentiary support.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs as a reprimand for unsubstantiated bias allegations, emphasizing that costs awards should be reasonable and not punitive.

Rogerson v. Havergal, 2020 ONSC 3151

SCJSuperior Court of JusticeOct 24, 2017

Superior Court of Justice

Superior Court of Justice

Costs of $3,165 awarded to responding party following dismissal of applicant's unsubstantiated judicial recusal motion.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to recuse the judge for bias, the responding party, Falconers LLP, sought its costs.

The applicant had relied on an unsworn complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council containing serious, unsubstantiated allegations against the court.

The court held that costs should follow the event and that the responding party was reasonably required to attend the motion.

Costs were awarded to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $3,165.

Aganeh v. Aganeh, 2017 ONSC 6386

Showing 5 of 5 citing cases