Sean J. O’Donnell

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff argued costs should be in the cause, while the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs payable forthwith.

The court applied the presumptive 'pay as you go' rule under Rule 57.03, finding no reason to depart from it.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the motion was not frivolous or an abuse of process.

Partial indemnity costs totaling $44,000 were awarded to the various defendants, with payment extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent former employees and their new competing businesses from soliciting its customers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, as the non-competition agreements were either expired or likely unenforceable.

Furthermore, the court found no irreparable harm, concluding that damages would be an adequate remedy if the plaintiff ultimately succeeded at trial.

This endorsement addresses costs for two motions heard on September 4, 2018.

The plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim was largely successful, as the impugned allegations were found to be scandalous, embarrassing, and untenable in law.

The defendants Perry and Premier's motion for contempt of court against the plaintiff was dismissed due to a slim prospect of success and marginal utility.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff against defendants Clifford Perry and 2543727 Ontario Ltd. o/a Premier Stairs and Railings for both motions, citing the reprehensible and scandalous nature of the struck pleadings and the redundancy of the contempt motion.

No costs were awarded against Kevin Gurnsey.

Following a pleadings motion in which the defendant successfully obtained an order striking certain paragraphs of the plaintiff’s statement of claim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $26,000, while the plaintiff argued the request was excessive and proposed partial indemnity costs between $4,500 and $5,500.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized proportionality and the objective of fixing fair and reasonable costs for the unsuccessful party to pay.

The court concluded the defendant was largely successful but that the claimed amount was excessive given the nature of the motion and the materials filed.

Partial indemnity costs were therefore reduced and fixed at $8,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to strike numerous paragraphs from the plaintiff’s statement of claim on the basis that they were irrelevant, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise non‑compliant with pleading rules.

The action concerned an employment dispute in which the plaintiff alleged breach of an employment agreement and entitlement to compensation under a long‑term incentive plan.

The court held that many paragraphs contained extensive background allegations about corporate structure, family relationships, and alleged misconduct that were largely irrelevant to the contractual dispute and would unnecessarily complicate the litigation.

Applying established principles governing pleadings, the court struck the majority of the impugned paragraphs but allowed certain limited background and compensation‑related paragraphs to remain.

The plaintiff was ordered to file and serve a fresh amended statement of claim consistent with the decision.