Stefanie Vescio

Following the dismissal of a defendant’s motion for summary dismissal and the granting of an order that two related actions be tried together, the court determined the issue of costs based on written submissions.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing that the motion was unmeritorious and conducted in a manner that unnecessarily prolonged proceedings.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for rare and exceptional cases involving reprehensible conduct and found that the unsuccessful motion did not meet that threshold.

The court also considered the respondent’s claimed impecuniosity but held that financial hardship is only one factor among many under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Partial indemnity costs of $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax were awarded.

The plaintiff dentist brought an action against his former employee for misappropriation of funds.

The defendant employee brought a motion to strike the statement of claim or for summary judgment dismissing the action, arguing it was statute-barred and lacked sufficient particulars.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to consolidate the action with the defendant's separate constructive dismissal action.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding the pleadings sufficient and that genuine issues of material fact required a trial.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion in part, ordering the two actions to be tried together or consecutively to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.