3 total
The successful plaintiff was awarded $40,000 in costs following an unaccepted offer to settle.
The plaintiff, Mancini Associates LLP, obtained a judgment against the defendant Anthony Guido for $29,413.15 plus prejudgment interest.
This decision concerns the subsequent costs award.
The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of its offer to settle and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, as the defendant failed to accept an offer to settle for the judgment amount.
Applying Rule 57.01 factors, the court awarded the plaintiff $40,000 in all-inclusive costs, deeming the plaintiff's requested amount of $64,537.28 to be partially excessive, particularly regarding hours claimed and non-recoverable expenses related to other defendants.
The court ordered a guarantor to pay $29,413.15 in unpaid legal fees, rejecting his defense of economic duress.
The plaintiff law firm, Mancini Associates LLP, sued its former clients, Perpetual Income Producing Enterprises Inc. (PIPE), Armando Orefice, and Anthony Guido, for unpaid legal invoices totaling $29,413.15.
Default judgment was obtained against PIPE and Orefice.
The trial proceeded against Guido, who had signed a retainer agreement and verbally agreed to be jointly and severally liable for the fees.
Guido defended by alleging breach of solicitor-client relationship"sharp practices" and that he signed the retainer under duress.
The court found Guido's retainer agreement valid and enforceable, rejecting the duress claim and his assertion that his obligations ceased when the plaintiff threatened to terminate its retainer with PIPE/Orefice.
The court also found no failure to mitigate by the plaintiff in not pursuing a charging order for a $10,000 costs award against a third party (TD Bank).
Judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff against Guido for the full amount plus pre-judgment interest.
Applicant ordered to produce medical records and resume as they are arguably relevant to disability discrimination claim.
The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate brought a request for production of the applicant's medical records and resume.
The applicant did not respond to the request.
The Tribunal found that the requested documents met the threshold of arguable relevance, as they related directly to the alleged disabilities and the applicant's work experience.
The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the medical documents and his resume.
