Stefan Roman Juzkiw

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a four-day trial concerning parenting and child support orders for a 5-year-old child.

The court analyzed the parties' offers to settle, success on various parenting and support issues, and unreasonable conduct during litigation.

Despite the mother’s partial success on child support, the court found her conduct unreasonable, including making unsupported allegations and filing excessive materials, which rebutted her presumptive entitlement to costs.

Ultimately, the court ordered that neither party pay costs to the other, reflecting the divided success and conduct of the parties.

The plaintiff, Continental Homes Inc., sought costs following a trial where it was awarded $23,279.50 in lien and breach of contract damages, and successfully defeated the defendants' $63,516.77 set-off and counterclaim.

The court considered the plaintiff's limited success (14% of claimed damages), the plaintiff's reasonable offers to settle, and the conduct of both parties, including the plaintiff's significant delay in filing costs outlines and the defendants' counsel's violation of page limits.

The court awarded the plaintiff $20,000 in partial indemnity costs and clarified the correct prejudgment interest rate and commencement date for the damages awarded.

This case involved a construction contract dispute where the plaintiff, Continental Homes Inc., sued the defendants, 2646576 Ontario Inc. (owner) and 8682470 Canada Inc. o/a Chang Xin Construction (general contractor), for breach of contract and a claim for lien.

The defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract.

The court found that an enforceable subcontract existed between Continental and Chang.

The court determined that Chang fundamentally breached the subcontract by failing to pay the required deposit and wrongfully terminating the contract.

The defendants' alleged delays by Continental were found to be the fault of the defendants due to delays in obtaining locates and surveys.

The court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim and awarded Continental $23,279.50 in damages for breach of contract and confirmed its lien for the same amount, to be paid from the cash security.

Continental's claim for lost profit and business opportunities was denied due to lack of evidence.

The plaintiff, an insurance company, sought to extend a Mareva Injunction against multiple defendants involved in a sophisticated mortgage fraud scheme.

The plaintiff had previously issued a loss payment under a title insurance policy after a fraudulent mortgage was declared void.

The Mareva Injunction, initially granted ex parte, froze accounts of several defendants who received fraudulent mortgage proceeds.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, sufficient inference of risk of dissipation, and that the balance of convenience favored extending the injunction.

The court also addressed the needs of a self-represented defendant, Xuan Dieu Vy Nguyen, who opposed the motion, by ensuring access to living expenses and directing an oral hearing for future default judgment motions to allow her to present her case.

This endorsement concerns a motion by Chicago Title Insurance Company to continue an interim ex parte Mareva injunction related to mortgage fraud proceeds.

The court found a strong prima facie case and a significant risk of dissipation of funds, which remained unchallenged by the defendants.

The injunction was continued, and the motion adjourned for further proceedings.

The Bank of Montreal (Applicant) sought approval of the Receiver's (KSV) conduct, fees, and discharge, along with an order for costs against the Respondents (Can United Consulting Corporation, Facilitate Settlement, and other related debtor corporations) and personally against Mr. Kai Wu, the directing mind of the debtor corporations.

The Debtors had borrowed $2.1 million under a federal pandemic assistance program (HASCAP) and failed to repay.

The Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) repaid the principal to BMO and stepped into BMO's shoes for enforcement.

The Debtors and Mr. Wu showed limited cooperation with the Receiver, failed to provide financial records, and transferred significant funds for personal use.

The court approved the Receiver's conduct, fees, and discharge.

Crucially, the court found Mr. Wu's conduct amounted to an abuse of process due to his persistent failure to comply with court orders and cooperate with the Receiver, despite repeated adjournments and undertakings.

Consequently, the court awarded $50,000 in costs against the Respondents and personally against Mr. Wu.

This decision addresses costs following a bifurcated trial where the applicant successfully challenged the validity of her 2017 divorce on grounds of lack of notice and improper date of separation.

While the applicant won this "battle" and beat her offer to settle, the court noted that her success on the date of separation issue (finding parties never lived together, thus separation date was marriage date in 2013) might lead to her equalization claim being barred by a different, six-year limitation period.

The judge fixed the amounts of costs for both parties (applicant on a substantial indemnity basis, respondent on a partial indemnity basis) but ordered them "in the cause," deferring the final award until the ultimate resolution of the main equalization application and the applicability of the second limitation period.

This case involved a trial of an issue to determine the validity of a 2017 default divorce judgment and the parties' separation date, which impacted the applicant's property claims.

The applicant, Ms. Sha, argued the divorce was invalid due to lack of service and a false separation date.

The respondent, Mr. Buchan, claimed it was a consensual divorce following a sham marriage for immigration purposes.

The court found both parties' evidence largely untruthful and inconsistent, making it difficult to ascertain the true facts.

However, the court concluded that Mr. Buchan failed to prove personal service of the divorce application on Ms. Sha.

While Ms. Sha failed to prove cohabitation, leading the court to conclude the parties separated on their marriage date (July 18, 2013), the divorce order was set aside due to lack of proper service, preventing the limitation period for property claims from running.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim and dismissing his action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the pleaded facts did not establish a breach of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, nor did they provide a basis for a civil cause of action against the City.

The appeal on costs was also dismissed, with the Court finding the original costs order reasonable.

This decision addresses the costs of an application brought by the applicant under the Co-operative Corporations Act, which was dismissed due to the applicant's inability to proceed and lack of proper leave.

The applicant, Angelique Codina, sought injunctive and other relief but failed to obtain the required court order under s. 68(2) of the Act before commencing the action.

The application was adjourned multiple times due to the applicant's incarceration and her inability to effectively pursue the matter or find other co-op members to assume carriage.

The court dismissed the application on procedural grounds and considered the respondents' request for costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondents, declining their request for substantial indemnity, as the dismissal was procedural and not on the merits of the allegations.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) after the defendant failed to close the transaction.

The defendant's statement of defence alleged fraud or misrepresentation regarding property subdivision, but his affidavit on the motion contradicted this, claiming forgery and incapacity due to medication.

The court found the motion was not premature, ruled the defendant's expert evidence inadmissible due to non-compliance with Rule 53.03, and held the defendant was bound by admissions in his statement of defence.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, awarding damages for breach of contract.

The Plaintiff sought to amend an existing litigation timetable due to COVID-19 disruptions.

The Defendant opposed remote examinations for discovery, argued for incomplete documentary production, and sought to bring a motion for security for costs.

The court ordered the delivery of sworn affidavits of documents, mandated remote examinations for discovery and mediation if requested, and directed that any motion for security for costs be brought after discoveries.