S.E. Healey

Following successful motions to strike the plaintiffs' $5 million claim as statute-barred, the defendants sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the requested amounts were disproportionate and suggested a combined award of $10,000.

The court reviewed the complexity of the historical claims, the extensive document retrieval required, and the plaintiffs' conduct which prolonged the proceedings.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded costs of $85,000 to each defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to 79 refusals made by the defendants' representative during examinations for discovery in a 12-year-old action regarding frozen bank accounts.

The court applied the principles governing the scope of permissible discovery questions and ordered the defendants to answer only 6 of the 79 refusals.

The defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs of $9,211.37 for their substantial success on the motion.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in 2020 alleging breach of an airport lease and negligent misrepresentation regarding a lease extension promised between 1985 and 1995.

The defendants moved to strike the claims under Rule 21.01(1) as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs argued the Real Property Limitations Act applied or that the breaches were ongoing.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the claims were subject to the Limitations Act, 2002 and the former Limitations Act.

The court held it was plain and obvious that the plaintiffs discovered their claims between 1999 and 2013, well beyond the applicable limitation periods.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend.

The accused brought a mid-trial application alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights, arguing that police exceeded the temporal scope of a search warrant when extracting data from his seized cell phones.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of the application.

The court found that the warrant's temporal limits applied only to usage timelines, not to communications related to trafficking, and that the accused failed to provide evidence that police actually examined data outside the warrant's scope.

The application was summarily dismissed as manifestly frivolous.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order compelling the respondent unit owners to allow access to their penthouse unit so contractors could repair an adjacent common element riser.

The respondents refused access, arguing the situation was not an exigent health and safety issue and seeking mediation under s. 132 of the Condominium Act.

The court found that s. 132 does not mandate mediation for disagreements under the Act, and that the corporation had a duty to repair the failing risers to prevent water damage under s. 117(1).

The application was granted, and the respondents were ordered to pay the remobilization costs and full indemnity costs of the application.

The plaintiff trucking company sued the defendants for $33,900 in unpaid invoices.

The defendants counterclaimed for the same amount, alleging the parties reached an oral resolution agreement to set off the debt against the defendants' share of profits from a joint venture involving excavated soil.

The court reviewed the documentary evidence, including text messages, and found the defendants failed to prove the existence of the alleged resolution agreement.

The plaintiff's claim was granted and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change the school placement of the parties' two children from Orillia to Barrie.

The mother, who had historically been the primary caregiver, recently moved to Minesing and faced significant financial hardship and lengthy daily commutes to transport the children to their current schools.

The respondent father opposed the change, relying on the children's expressed preferences to remain at their current schools and the stability of the status quo.

The court granted the motion on a temporary basis, finding that the mother's financial desperation, the reduction in commute times, and her historical role as the primary caregiver outweighed the children's preferences and the status quo, making the change in the children's best interests.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the moving parties sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the responding parties engaged in egregious litigation conduct, including providing false evidence, hiding evidence, and commencing a spurious counterclaim that amounted to an abuse of process.

The court held that an award of punitive damages does not preclude an award of full indemnity costs where the conduct warrants it.

Costs were fixed at $230,000 on a full indemnity scale.

Following a successful trial where the plaintiff was awarded coverage under two creditor protection insurance policies, mental distress damages, and punitive damages, the court determined the costs of the action.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date the defendants' amended counterclaim was ordered to issue, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter due to the defendants' reprehensible litigation conduct, unproven allegations of fraud, and failure to accept a reasonable offer to settle.

The plaintiff was awarded $260,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court issued a costs endorsement following motions regarding supervised parenting time.

The applicants, the mother and maternal grandmothers, were largely successful in their request to have family members supervise contact with the child, rather than a professional service.

The respondent father took an unreasonable position in insisting on professional supervision and arbitrarily cutting off contact with the grandmothers.

The court awarded costs of $8,500 to the mother and $10,000 to the grandmothers, payable by the father.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendant's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant argued the agreement was void due to misrepresentations about conservation authority restrictions and that she was not personally liable because she signed 'in trust' for a corporation.

The court found that the issue of misrepresentation required a trial due to the risk of inconsistent findings with related third-party claims.

However, the court granted partial summary judgment on two discrete issues, finding that the defendant would be personally liable if the agreement is enforceable, and quantifying the plaintiff's damages at $381,984.02.

During a trial for assault and assault with a weapon, the Crown moved to amend the indictment to substitute 'a female person' for the named victim, as the Crown's lay witnesses could not identify the victim by name and police hearsay evidence was excluded.

The court initially granted the motion, finding no prejudice to the accused's ability to meet the case.

However, after the accused and the named victim testified for the defence, firmly establishing her identity, the court reversed its ruling to avoid confusing the jury.

The defendant successfully moved to set aside a default judgment obtained by his former spouse on a crossclaim, as he had never been served.

He sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to her unreasonable conduct in refusing to consent to the motion despite having no proof of service.

The court found the responding party's conduct egregious and awarded costs partially on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $6,835.

The parties sought costs following motions primarily concerning financial disclosure and an accounting of children's education funds.

The court noted the long history of the hard-fought case and the difficulty in evaluating success, as both parties took unreasonable positions on certain issues.

The court reserved the costs of the respondent's disclosure motion to the trial judge, who would be best positioned to assess its necessity.

However, the court awarded the applicant modest costs of $750 for his successful cross-motion to obtain an accounting of the education funds.

The applicant sought costs following a successful family law trial where the court terminated the respondent's access to the children and awarded retroactive child support.

The respondent failed to file written costs submissions despite being granted extensions.

The court found that while the respondent's desire to pursue access did not warrant full recovery costs, his unreasonable conduct, including denying criminal convictions and failing to produce financial disclosure, lengthened the trial.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $14,000.

Following a trial on the parties' motions to change, the court determined the issue of costs.

Both parties had exchanged offers to settle prior to trial.

The court found that the trial outcome was more favourable to the respondent than the applicant's offer, particularly regarding spousal support.

The respondent was awarded costs of $6,000, which was discounted to reflect the applicant's positive conduct in advancing the litigation and continuing to pay support.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was granted specific performance and an abatement of the purchase price, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court found that the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation and trial was egregious, including failing to respond to interlocutory steps, attempting to amend pleadings on the first day of trial, and calling witnesses to provide unpled and unpersuasive evidence.

As a result, the court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $210,000 inclusive of HST.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2004 final order, seeking to terminate child and spousal support.

The respondent mother sought retroactive adjustments to child and spousal support, payment of section 7 expenses, and ongoing spousal support due to her inability to work caused by a medical condition (Arnold Chiari malformation).

The court ordered retroactive child support back to 2004 but reduced the quantum due to delay by both parties.

Child support was terminated for all three adult children on various dates.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding the mother's health and ordered indefinite spousal support of $1,818 per month, imputing a modest income to her based on her real estate asset.

The father was also ordered to pay his proportionate share of section 7 expenses, while the mother was credited for the outstanding equalization payment and interest.

The accused, charged with arson and related offences, brought four applications during his trial.

He sought to quash a wiretap authorization, exclude the evidence of a police agent, and stay the charges due to late disclosure.

The court granted the application to quash the wiretap authorization, finding that the Information to Obtain (ITO) omitted material facts and failed to accurately present the informant's credibility issues, resulting in a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The wiretap evidence was excluded under section 24(2).

The remaining applications, including the request for a stay of proceedings due to late disclosure, were dismissed, as the late disclosure did not irreparably prejudice the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The defendant brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation obtained ex parte by the plaintiff.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, including that the original Agreement of Purchase and Sale had lapsed, that the defendant had not initialed key changes, and that the defendant's lawyer had explicitly denied the existence of a binding agreement.

The court concluded that the material non-disclosure alone warranted discharging the certificate, and further found that the evidence did not establish the plaintiff had an interest in the land.

The motion was granted and the certificate was discharged.