Stepan Juzkiw

This costs endorsement followed a motion where the Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their Statement of Claim, a motion unopposed by the Defendants except on the issue of costs.

The Defendants sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis, while the Plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs.

The court found that the Plaintiffs' conduct, characterized by delay and inadvertence, caused the Defendants to incur unnecessary costs, but did not warrant substantial indemnity.

The Master determined that the Defendants' claimed hours and quantum were disproportionate given the nature of the amendments.

Ultimately, the Plaintiffs were ordered to pay fixed costs of $7,000 to the Defendants.

This endorsement addresses costs for two motions heard on October 22, 2019.

The Regional Municipality of Peel and Bi-Views Building Service Ltd. sought costs, while the plaintiff Aparna Sanwalka also claimed costs.

The court found Peel and Bi-View to be the more successful parties, particularly regarding the dismissal of Ms. Sanwalka's motion for examination for discovery accommodations and the necessity of Peel's motion to advance the action.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis to Peel ($2,500) and Bi-View ($750), payable by Aparna Sanwalka.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar's dismissal for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court applied a contextual analysis, considering the Reid factors (length of delay, explanation, inadvertence, promptness, prejudice) as affirmed by H.B. Fuller Company.

The court found the delay was not inordinate or unexplained, noting contributions to delay from both parties and the plaintiff's ongoing intent to pursue the action.

It also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant, attributing alleged prejudice (lost documents, audio recordings, witness contact) to the defendant's own lack of diligence in preserving evidence and complying with rules.

The motion was granted, the dismissal order set aside, and a new timetable for remaining steps was ordered.

The court rendered a costs decision following a successful motion by the defendant to terminate a temporary injunction.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, while the plaintiff argued for costs in the cause or on an actual indemnity basis.

The court found the defendant to be the successful party and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the defendant's request for substantial indemnity due to over-resourcing and animosity in submissions.

The court also declined to award costs personally against the plaintiff's counsel, finding their conduct did not meet the high threshold for such an order.

Costs were fixed at $17,263.01, payable by the plaintiff to the defendant within 30 days.

The plaintiff sought to continue a temporary injunction preventing the defendant from restricting access to a water well on the defendant's property, which supplied water to the plaintiff's adjacent property.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to prohibit the plaintiff's entry, declare no easement right, and set aside the injunction.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald and R. v. CBC tests for injunctions, specifically focusing on the "strong prima facie case" criterion.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case for an implied easement of accommodation or an easement based on common intention, primarily because the requested easement would require positive acts of maintenance and expense from the defendant, which cannot form the subject matter of an easement without privity of contract.

Consequently, the temporary injunction was terminated.

The plaintiff, Shelly Wine, brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order setting aside a default judgment against two defendants, Houman Mahadjeri and Rayvin Teena Squires.

The motion judge had set aside the default judgment on terms, including payment of costs thrown away.

The plaintiff argued the motion judge misapprehended evidence regarding the timing of counsel retention and failed to address the defendants' delay, leading to prejudice.

The court applied the two-part test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b), which requires "good reason to doubt the correctness" of the order and that the appeal involves "matters of such importance." The court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, which had properly considered the five factors for setting aside default judgment as outlined in Mountain View Farms Ltd. v McQueen.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.