Sepideh K. Nassabi

This decision concerns the costs award following the dismissal of LivingArt Kitchens Inc.'s motion for extensive interlocutory injunctive relief against former employees and related corporations.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis, while LivingArt argued for no costs or significantly reduced partial indemnity costs.

The court, applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that while all parties contributed to procedural issues, LivingArt was the primary cause of the extraordinary legal expenses.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, reducing their aggregate claim to reflect some unreasonable claims and their own contributions to the litigation's complexity.

The appellants moved for a stay of a trial judgment ordering specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale and requiring them to vacate the property.

The trial proceeded largely in their absence after their requests for an adjournment were denied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while the appeal raised a serious question regarding the refusal to adjourn, the appellants failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, particularly given the respondents' undertaking not to deal with the property pending the appeal.

The defendant sought to schedule a summary judgment motion in two related actions concerning failed pre-construction home purchases.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing it would not be the most expeditious or efficient process.

The court, exercising its gatekeeping function under Rule 50.13(6), declined to schedule the summary judgment motion, finding that a one-day trial would be more efficient given the limited time savings and the potential for overlapping factual determinations with other pleaded issues (misrepresentation, undue influence, exemplary damages).

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is only appropriate for discrete, severable issues.

A timetable for documentary production, discoveries, and mandatory mediation was ordered.

The plaintiffs sought specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property, or damages in the alternative, after the defendants refused to close the transaction.

The defendants argued the agreement was invalid and brought a third-party claim for collusion against their real estate agent and brokerage.

The defendants failed to attend trial despite court orders.

The court found the property unique to the plaintiffs' multi-generational family needs and determined that damages would be an inadequate remedy due to the defendants' financial inability to pay.

Specific performance was granted to the plaintiffs, and the third-party claim was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the defendants.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision granting payment of invoices for demolition and clean-up work performed on their fire-damaged property.

The motion judge found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the amount owing.

The respondent had provided comprehensive documentation including receipts, supplier invoices, worker timesheets, and the final amount had been audited by a company appointed by the appellants' insurer.

The appellants did not cross-examine and failed to raise sufficient doubt about the amount.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Following dismissal of a civil action as res judicata and statute-barred under the Limitations Act, the successful defendant sought costs of the entire proceeding.

The plaintiff argued the requested costs were excessive compared to a prior draft costs outline prepared for an earlier motion.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court reviewed the parties’ submissions and considered proportionality.

The court found the defendant’s partial indemnity rates reasonable and awarded a reduced lump sum for the action.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a ruling that her action should proceed to trial and not be dismissed on a forthcoming summary judgment motion.

The defendant argued that the claim was barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, abuse of process, and the Limitations Act because the same issues had already been adjudicated in a prior action concerning the construction of a residential property.

The court found that the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate factual and legal issues previously determined and that the new action was also commenced outside the applicable two-year limitation period.

Applying principles of proportionality and the culture shift endorsed in Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court determined that further motion proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

The action was dismissed immediately as an abuse of process.

The appellant tenant appealed a summary judgment decision that found it had not validly exercised its lease renewal option.

The motion judge concluded that the parties' conduct did not amount to a waiver of the notice requirement and that post-deadline negotiations were for a new lease, not a renewal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the record supported the motion judge's conclusions and that the landlord did not act in bad faith by considering other tenant options.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.