Shawna Sosnovich

Following a procedural motion where the moving defendants successfully obtained an order for a further and better affidavit of documents and written interrogatories, the parties could not agree on costs.

The moving defendants sought $14,217.87 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiffs argued for no costs due to divided success, or alternatively $3,500.

The court found the moving defendants were largely successful and awarded them costs fixed at $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the motion was straightforward and did not warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The moving defendants in a $3.5 million debt collection action brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to produce a further and better Affidavit of Documents and to produce the elderly plaintiff for oral discovery.

The court found the plaintiffs' initial Affidavit of Documents deficient for failing to list relevant banking and loan records, ordering a further and better affidavit.

However, relying on medical evidence of the plaintiff's frail health, the court declined to order her attendance at oral discovery, directing instead that discovery proceed via written interrogatories.

The plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment against two defendants on personal guarantees of a corporate loan and a credit card balance.

The defendants argued that bank representatives had assured them their liability was limited to 25% each, contrary to the literal wording of the guarantees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the guarantees, as the defendants' uncontradicted evidence about the bank's representations required credibility assessments.

The court also declined to grant partial summary judgment on the credit card and related fraudulent preference claims due to the risk of inconsistent findings.

The moving defendant, the Estate of Alex Bartholomey, brought motions to appoint a litigation administrator and to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff landlords for commercial lease arrears.

The court appointed the deceased's daughter as litigation administrator, making her jointly and severally liable for costs.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the default judgment, validating the plaintiffs' order to continue nunc pro tunc and finding that the Estate failed to provide a plausible excuse for the default or an arguable defence on the merits regarding the deceased's liability under an indemnity agreement.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal and cross-appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that success on both the appeal and cross-appeal was divided, and therefore ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss claims of unjust enrichment against the Da Costas and solicitor negligence against Allen P. Welman, and to argue that certain monetary claims were statute-barred.

The plaintiff, the Estate of Guido Barberio, alleged that the Da Costas took advantage of the deceased in a below-market value property transfer, aided by Mr. Welman's negligence.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning the credibility of witnesses, the nature of the relationship between the deceased and the Da Costas, the circumstances surrounding the property transfer, and the discoverability of the negligence claim against the solicitor.

The court emphasized that expanded fact-finding powers were inappropriate given the complex factual matrix and intertwined credibility issues, and that a full trial was necessary for a just resolution.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion for summary judgment in an action brought by the respondents.

The appellant sought to end the Ontario action based on a previously dismissed lawsuit brought by the respondent against the appellant in India relating to the same cause of action.

The appellant invoked res judicata and abuse of process defences, and relied on a provision of the Indian Civil Procedure Code.

The motion judge denied the motion, finding that the respondent had never been served in the Indian action and no disposition had been made on the merits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's treatment of the Indian law provision or in the application of res judicata and abuse of process doctrines.

Following the settlement of cross-applications alleging shareholder oppression regarding a jointly owned villa property, the parties sought a determination of costs.

The court ordered each party to bear their own costs for the applicant's initial application, as neither achieved success and the matter was resolved via a buyout process.

For the respondents' cross-application, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant, finding the cross-application lacked merit as the applicant was a minority shareholder incapable of oppressive conduct under the Business Corporations Act.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by Indian procedural law (Order 23, Rule 1(4)) or, alternatively, by Ontario doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process.

This argument stemmed from a prior lawsuit in India, commenced by one of the plaintiffs against the defendant, which was abandoned before service on the defendant and dismissed without a determination on the merits.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that neither Indian law, which requires service for the procedural bar to apply, nor Ontario law, which requires a decision on the merits for res judicata or actual litigation for abuse of process, precluded the current action.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce personal guarantees signed by the individual defendants for the indebtedness of their corporation.

The defendants argued their liability should be limited to 25% of the total debt, based on the statutory limit for small business loans and the title of the guarantee document.

The court found the guarantees unambiguously stated the liability was unlimited for non-small business loans, and the bank had no duty to inform the guarantors about future credit facilities.

The motion for summary judgment was granted.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar’s administrative order dismissing the action for failure to set the matter down for trial within the required time.

Applying the factors outlined in Reid v. Dow Corning Corp., the court considered the explanation for delay, inadvertence in missing the deadline, promptness in bringing the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found that the delay resulted from inadvertence, that the plaintiff acted promptly after learning of the dismissal, and that the action had not been abandoned.

Although the defendants argued the claim was statute‑barred and that presumptive prejudice arose from the expiry of the limitation period, the court held the limitation issue could not be determined definitively at this stage and that no substantial prejudice would arise from allowing the action to proceed.

The registrar’s dismissal order was therefore set aside.