S. Roy

Following earlier reasons granting relief in a complex commercial dispute, the successful applicants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $428,000.

The respondents argued that prior settlement offers justified limiting costs to partial indemnity and challenged the hourly rates used in calculating substantial indemnity costs.

The court held that the settlement offers did not meet the requirements of Rule 49 and were not genuine offers capable of affecting costs.

Given findings of deceitful and fraudulent conduct by the respondents and failure to comply with court‑ordered accounting, substantial indemnity costs were warranted.

Applying proportionality principles and reviewing the bill of costs, the court found the hours and rates reasonable and awarded the full amount claimed.

The applicants and respondents entered into joint venture agreements to invest in commercial real estate projects through jointly owned companies.

The applicants discovered that the respondents were commingling funds, failing to make their required equity contributions, and diverting the applicants' funds to their own personal benefit and to companies they solely owned.

The court found that the respondents breached their contractual and fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched.

The court imposed constructive trusts over several properties owned by the respondents, appointed a receiver over the respondents' assets, and cancelled the respondents' shares in the jointly owned companies where they had not contributed equity.

The court determined costs following the abandonment of a motion seeking to invalidate a mortgage registered against a Toronto property.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $12,000 after the applicants abandoned the motion.

The court held that the moving party was not entitled to recover costs incurred after a certain date because continuing to prepare materials was unreasonable while settlement discussions were ongoing and no hearing date had been set.

Considering the dockets and the proportionality of the work performed, the court found the claimed amount excessive.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs of $5,000.

A priority dispute arose between two mortgagees over lands on Queen Street East following a $400,000 advance intended to fund a principal payment under a vendor take-back mortgage.

Funds advanced by a second mortgagee were delivered by certified cheque to the first mortgagee but were subsequently returned to the borrower after arrangements between the borrower and the first mortgagee to defer the principal installment.

The second mortgagee argued that deposit of the cheque constituted acceptance of payment under the first mortgage and a re‑advance to the borrower, thereby affecting priority.

The court reviewed extensive email communications and evidence surrounding the transaction and raised credibility concerns about the first mortgagee’s knowledge of the source and purpose of the funds.

The court directed brief viva voce evidence and potential cross‑examination to resolve the factual dispute before determining priority.

Three competing groups of plaintiffs and their respective counsel brought carriage motions seeking to represent a class of investors who suffered losses following a massive decline in the value of Sino-Forest Corporation's securities.

The court evaluated the competing actions based on factors including the definition of class membership, class period, theory of the case, causes of action, joinder of defendants, and prospects of certification.

The court stayed the Smith and Northwest actions and granted carriage to the Labourers action, finding its approach to the class definition, causes of action, and joinder of defendants to be the most cohesive and in the best interests of the class.