Shaun F. Laubman

This costs endorsement followed a motion with divided success.

The applicant succeeded on minor issues (dismissing a sealing order motion), while the respondent succeeded on the major issue (establishing privilege over documents and obtaining an order for their delivery/destruction).

The court found the major issue occupied significantly more time.

Applying Family Law Rule 24(6), the court apportioned costs, awarding them to the respondent due to greater success on the major issue.

The applicant's failure to provide a costs outline, while criticizing the respondent's counsel's time investment, was noted as an 'attack in the air'.

The respondent's costs outline was deemed reasonable given the complexity and effort involved.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $81,275.65 in costs.

The respondent, Eli Dadouch, brought a motion seeking the return and destruction of solicitor-client privileged notes surreptitiously photographed by the applicant, Anita Bielak, and for orders sealing the court file and restraining the applicant from discussing the litigation with their adult children.

The court found the notes to be privileged and ordered their return and destruction.

However, the court dismissed the requests for a sealing order and a gag order, emphasizing the principle of open courts and the impracticality of such an order given the adult children's awareness and the need for therapeutic, not legal, intervention for their distress.

The applicant sought an order discharging a transformer easement registered on its property in 1965 in favour of the Crown, which was ancillary to an approach lighting easement for the Windsor Airport.

The applicant argued the easement had been abandoned or had expired by its terms.

The court found that while abandonment was not proven, the easement had expired by its own terms because technological advances, including GPS navigation and self-contained transformers in modern approach lights, rendered the stand-alone transformer obsolete.

The court ordered the easement discharged.

The appellant was substantially successful on appeal and sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellant $7,500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis for the appeal.

However, the court declined to alter the costs order from the underlying motion to strike, finding that the respondent remained the successful party on that motion.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion for the return of confidential information held by their former employee, the defendant, on her personal computer.

The defendant had been terminated and was sued for allegedly stealing over $400,000, while she counterclaimed for wrongful termination.

The parties agreed to have an independent IT expert copy and delete the confidential information, but disputed whether the expert should image the entire hard drive for preservation and whether the defendant should swear an affirmation confirming all confidential documents were produced.

The court ordered that the hard drive be imaged and preserved by an independent third party to prevent future disputes, and required the defendant to provide a sworn confirmation.

The appellant tenant sued the respondent landlord for damages arising from two sewer backups, alleging breach of lease, negligence, and misrepresentation.

The motion judge struck most claims, finding they were barred by the lease's covenant to insure.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the covenant to insure barred the negligence and breach of contract claims, it was not plain and obvious that it or the 'entire agreement' clause barred the negligent misrepresentation claim.

The Court also allowed the tenant's claim that the landlord was estopped from relying on the covenant to insure for the second backup to proceed.

During an ongoing civil trial involving dealership market allocation disputes, the defendant sought permission to rely on a second supplemental expert report and to introduce maps and charts derived from previously discovered market study data.

The plaintiff argued the late expert report constituted trial by ambush and violated prior scheduling orders.

The court held that the supplemental expert opinion properly responded to new expert evidence and newly discovered data introduced during the proceedings, and its admission would not cause unfair prejudice.

The court also permitted the introduction of charts and maps derived from historical data for explanatory purposes, while refusing to authorize a new expert report from a non-designated witness responding to the opposing expert.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellants' appeal from an order striking certain paragraphs of their statement of defence.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the order under appeal was interlocutory because it did not dispose of any substantive defence.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

The appellant and respondent entered into a business arrangement to acquire a property, incorporating a company to hold it.

The respondent provided financing, secured by promissory notes and share pledging agreements.

When a third partner defaulted, the appellant acquired his shares but failed to pay the outstanding debt associated with them.

The trial judge found the respondent was entitled to forfeit the unpaid shares, resulting in a 55% ownership stake for the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge reasonably interpreted the interconnected agreements and correctly found that the statement of claim served as sufficient written notice of forfeiture.

In a Commercial List costs decision following a summary judgment motion in a shot-gun buy/sell dispute, two defendants who had obtained dismissal of the action against them sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court rejected substantial indemnity because no offers to settle had been made and the allegations of conspiracy and misappropriation were peripheral to the core contractual dispute.

Applying Rule 57 and proportionality principles, the court reduced the claimed partial indemnity amount to reflect the moving parties’ subordinate role on the motion and to exclude fees of non-record corporate and estates solicitors.

The moving parties were awarded all-inclusive partial indemnity costs of $91,400 payable within 30 days.

The parties entered into a joint venture to purchase and convert a property into a self-storage facility, which included a put/call agreement.

The respondent exercised the put, forcing the appellant to purchase the property at a price determined by an appraiser.

The appellant refused to close, alleging the appraiser made a manifest error by not using the income approach.

The trial judge granted specific performance to the respondent and awarded substantial indemnity costs based on an unserved offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the appraisal, upholding the award of specific performance for the vendor, and confirming the costs award.

The appellants appealed an order establishing a sale process for two corporations involved in an oppression remedy claim.

The motion judge ordered that the two corporations being sold could no longer be parties to the litigation to facilitate the sale.

The appellants argued this would cause tax prejudice, but the Court of Appeal found that any tax consequences could be addressed through expert calculation without flowing damages through the corporations.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction restraining them from soliciting the plaintiff's clients and using its confidential information.

The individual defendants had left the plaintiff's employment to join the corporate defendant, allegedly taking client lists and soliciting clients in breach of non-solicitation agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's application of the strong prima facie case test, the finding of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business viability, and the balance of convenience.

Following an earlier endorsement granting interlocutory injunctions concerning non‑solicitation and confidentiality, the court addressed the issue of costs of the motion.

The parties agreed on the quantum of costs at $105,000 all inclusive.

The court fixed the quantum accordingly but declined to determine liability for those costs at this stage.

Liability was reserved for the judge who will determine the final disposition of the action, to avoid prejudging potential outcomes or factual developments.

The defendant franchisor brought a motion for further documentary production from the plaintiff franchisee in an $11 million dispute over dealership construction and a competing franchise.

The defendant sought construction files, financial records of related non-party corporations, and documents from the plaintiff's accountants to assess the plaintiff's damages claims.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce additional construction documents, disclose relevant inter-company agreements, and request the voluntary production of financial statements from related non-party corporations, with leave for the defendant to bring Rule 30.10 motions if refused.

Multiple tobacco manufacturer defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $300,000 after withdrawing previously scheduled motions to strike the Crown’s statement of claim in a health care cost recovery action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

The defendants argued they were the successful parties because their motions prompted extensive amendments to the pleading and that the Crown delayed notifying them of its intention to amend.

The court held that the amendments addressed only some of the alleged deficiencies and that significant legal issues remained unresolved when the defendants chose to withdraw the motions.

As a result, success on the motions was considered divided.

Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court ordered that each side bear its own costs.

In the context of an ongoing shareholder dispute and oppression proceedings concerning car dealerships, the parties jointly sought directions on the appropriate sales process to separate the dealership operations from the litigation in order to preserve value.

One group of shareholders proposed an asset sale of the dealerships, while the other proposed a share sale.

The court considered the impending deadline imposed by the common lender, which had threatened to enforce its security if the dealerships were not separated from the dispute by a fixed date.

Given the urgency and the practical realities of completing a transaction quickly, the court held that a share sale was the most efficient and time-sensitive method to effect the separation.

The court therefore approved the proposed share-sale process.

The applicant filed a police misconduct complaint arising from a stop and search during the G20 summit.

The OIPRD investigated and directed the Chief of Police to hold a disciplinary hearing.

Because more than six months had passed, the Chief applied to the Police Services Board for an extension of time.

The Board denied the extension without notifying the applicant, allowing him to make submissions, or providing reasons for its decision.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, holding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicant with notice, an opportunity to be heard, and reasons for its decision.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment that found a shotgun buy-sell offer valid and enforceable despite minor non-compliance with the partnership agreement.

The offer contained two alternatives, one compliant and one non-compliant.

The Court of Appeal held that strict compliance with a shotgun buy-sell provision is required, but strict compliance is not perfect compliance.

The inclusion of a non-compliant alternative did not render the offer unenforceable because a compliant alternative was also included.

The court upheld the motion judge's decision to enforce the compliant alternative and award damages for the non-compliant elements.

Following a 17‑day commercial trial in which the plaintiff obtained judgment for specific performance and damages exceeding its earlier settlement offer, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff relied on Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that a written settlement offer transmitted by email triggered substantial indemnity costs consequences.

The court held that the email constituted a valid Rule 49 offer notwithstanding the “without prejudice” designation and rejected the defendants’ argument that such wording removed the offer from Rule 49.

In assessing quantum, the court applied the principles under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, emphasizing reasonableness rather than strict adherence to actual legal fees.

The court fixed costs at a lump sum reflecting partial and substantial indemnity principles and adjustments for conduct that lengthened the proceedings.