Shanti Eva Barclay

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their contempt motion against the respondents for breach of a 2012 judgment.

The 2012 judgment had found that the respondents interfered with water drainage from the appellants' property by damaging a drainage pipe, changing the slope of their driveway, and installing a rubber dam.

The respondents were ordered to restore the flow of water within three months.

The motion judge dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the respondents had complied by replacing the damaged pipe.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge misinterpreted the 2012 judgment, misapprehended the expert evidence, and misapplied the test for civil contempt.

The court ordered the respondents to implement the necessary steps to restore water flow as recommended by the appellants' expert, including installation of two 250mm diameter pipes and removal of the rubber dam.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by defendants seeking to hold litigation lenders liable for costs incurred by a class member (Mr. Zuber) who pursued an exaggerated damages claim and incurred substantial debt from litigation loans.

The trial judge had refused to order the lenders to pay costs, finding they did not instigate or control the litigation in a manner amounting to an abuse of process, despite the onerous interest rates and the loans impeding settlement.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, reiterating that non-party costs are limited to "person of straw" or abuse of process scenarios, neither of which applied to the lenders' conduct.

The court also refused leave to cross-appeal the trial judge's decision not to award costs of the motion to the lenders, finding no error in principle.

The plaintiff, Indell Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, Axiom Real-Time Metrics Inc., concerning responsibility for flood damage repairs and unauthorized tenant improvements under a commercial lease.

The third party, MMC Marketing and Promotion Inc., also raised issues regarding damages and betterment.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding contractual interpretation, estoppel, and the calculation of damages, including betterment and an administrative fee.

This decision addresses a costs dispute arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a rental car.

Aviscar Inc. sought substantial indemnity costs against Sinisa Filipovic and Certas Direct Insurance Company for their refusal to accept primary insurance responsibility under the Insurance Act and for unnecessarily prolonging litigation.

The court found Aviscar's early offer to settle was reasonable and that the respondents' actions led to significant unnecessary legal expenses.

Applying proportionality and considering the respondents' conduct, the court awarded Aviscar Inc. a total of $49,500 in costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a three-week jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs, Satish and Sharoj Sharma, were awarded nominal damages ($500 total) which were largely eliminated by statutory deductibles.

The court was tasked with fixing costs for the action.

The defendant, Jesse Stewart, sought costs, arguing success on the key issues and that the trial was unnecessarily lengthened by the plaintiffs' counsel's conduct.

The plaintiffs sought full or partial indemnity costs, or alternatively, no costs, citing their alleged impecuniosity.

The court found the plaintiffs were largely unsuccessful, treating the jury's award as $0 for costs purposes due to the deductibles.

The defendant's reasonable offers to settle, which were not accepted, further supported a costs award against the plaintiffs.

The court also considered instances of plaintiffs' counsel's conduct that unnecessarily lengthened the trial.

The plaintiffs' claim of impecuniosity was not given weight due to insufficient evidence and the existence of costs insurance.

The court awarded the defendant $65,000 in legal fees plus HST, $64,638.04 in disbursements (after reductions for unreasonable expert fees and mediation costs), and $1,321.17 for a mid-trial motion, totaling $139,409.21.

The defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to produce raw data, including handwritten notes, questionnaires, and answers, from a psycho-legal assessment conducted by Dr. Gerald Young.

The plaintiff opposed unconditional disclosure, citing privacy concerns and Dr. Young's proprietary interest in the questionnaires.

The court balanced the public interest in relevant evidence and trial fairness against patient privacy and the integrity of mental health evaluations.

The motion was allowed in part, ordering production of the raw data to defendants' counsel and any retained expert, subject to strict conditions of non-disclosure to the defendants themselves and destruction upon completion of the action or expert retainer.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, sought leave to proceed with an appeal from a jury verdict in a negligence action arising from a fire investigation and also sought rescission of the vexatious litigant orders.

The court reviewed the extensive litigation history and repeated unsuccessful attempts by the applicant to obtain similar relief before multiple judges.

The court held that leave could not be granted because the appeal had already been dismissed for delay and the materials disclosed no reasonable grounds to proceed.

The court further found no basis to rescind the vexatious litigant orders, noting the applicant’s continued pattern of relitigating decided matters and failing to comply with costs orders.

The application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents.