Stéphane Hutt

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated February 23, 2026.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement, with no costs awarded.

A law firm applied for approval of a contingency fee agreement, approval of accounts following termination of the retainer, and authorization to deduct fees and disbursements from funds held in trust.

The court also heard a motion for the firm to be removed as counsel of record after a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

While permitting the firm to withdraw from the record, the court declined to approve the contingency fee agreement or automatically enforce hourly rates triggered by termination.

Instead, the court held that the firm was entitled only to reasonable compensation for legal services and directed that the accounts be assessed in the ordinary manner under the Solicitors Act.

Fees relating to escrow agent services were found not to constitute legal services and therefore were not subject to assessment under that regime.

This costs decision follows the settlement of a real property dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

The court addresses the appropriate allocation of costs after the parties settled the action for $14,000, an amount within the Small Claims Court’s jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs, alleging the defendants’ conduct prolonged the litigation, while the defendants sought costs from the plaintiffs, arguing the action should have been brought in Small Claims Court.

The court found neither party’s conduct justified elevated costs, and, applying the relevant legal principles, ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs $2,170.01 in costs, reflecting a partial indemnity basis and the effect of an unaccepted offer to settle.

The plaintiffs initiated an action against the defendants for breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation concerning investment rental properties and their management.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found the action amenable to summary judgment and determined that the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of their loss and its cause by December 12, 2017, at the latest, when they terminated their property management agreement.

As the Statement of Claim was issued on March 16, 2020, beyond the two-year limitation period, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the action as time-barred.

This decision addresses a costs endorsement following a successful summary judgment motion by the defendants, which dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for anticipatory breach of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The court awarded costs of $50,000 to the defendants, including a previous $4,000 award.

The court considered factors such as the outcome, complexity, parties' conduct, and proportionality, reducing the defendants' requested amount due to duplication of effort and the plaintiff's partial success in adding a party, though this success was ultimately deemed a "pyrrhic victory" given the dismissal of the main action.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action for negligence, breach of contract, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, which was found to be statute-barred.

They also sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the fresh evidence motion, finding it did not meet the Palmer test, and the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the limitation period had expired by December 2018.

The court affirmed that the appellants had sufficient knowledge of their losses and the responsible parties by spring 2016, and their subjective belief that a proceeding was not "appropriate" did not delay discoverability.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a lien against the defendant unit owner for over $34,000 in legal costs incurred defending a Small Claims Court action, plus over $50,000 in costs for the current action.

The dispute originated from a $330 plumbing bill.

The court found that the defendant had paid all outstanding arrears and anticipated discharge costs early in the dispute, obligating the corporation to discharge the lien under s. 85 of the Condominium Act.

The court held the corporation's refusal to discharge the lien was unjustified and its claimed legal fees were grossly disproportionate and unreasonable.

The action was dismissed, and the lien and notice of sale were declared invalid.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for a certificate of pending litigation, the successful defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge or reduced.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding it appropriate to fix costs immediately.

Because the defendant had made an offer to settle that was as favourable as the outcome, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing the total costs at $30,655.83.

The plaintiff, City Core Consortia Limited, moved for leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property owned by the defendant, 2549386 Ontario Inc. City Core claimed specific performance and damages for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation, asserting a reasonable claim to an interest in the property.

The defendant argued the agreement was properly terminated due to the plaintiff's failure to deliver a required deposit and that equities did not support a CPL.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no triable issue regarding City Core's claim to an interest in the property, particularly given the "time is of the essence" clause and the plaintiff's failure to pay the deposit.

The court also found that the equities, including a non-registration clause and the plaintiff's delay, favored the defendant.

The appellants, Erica Leslie and Grip Fast Strategies Corp., appealed a lower court order dismissing their action against Stavros Daskos and an order for security for costs.

The respondents, Encanto Potash Trading Corporation, Encanto Potash Corp., and Stavros Daskos, cross-appealed the refusal to grant summary judgment dismissing the claim against Encanto Potash Corp. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against Mr. Daskos, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding his personal liability or guarantee.

The interlocutory appeals (security for costs and the cross-appeal regarding summary judgment against Encanto) were quashed as they were not integral to the final order appeal, and thus the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' pleadings or for summary judgment dismissing the claim for unpaid consulting invoices, and alternatively sought security for costs from the corporate plaintiff.

The court declined to strike the pleadings but granted partial summary judgment, dismissing the claims against the individual defendant and one corporate defendant as they were not parties to the consulting agreement.

The claims against the main corporate defendant were directed to trial.

The court also ordered the corporate plaintiff to post security for costs in installments, finding it lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

La demanderesse, Alphonsine Kasakanga, a obtenu un jugement par défaut contre les défendeurs, Chantal-Faith Fuamba et Yves Fuamba, pour manquement contractuel, violation d'obligations fiduciaires, fausses représentations frauduleuses et vol d'identité.

Les défendeurs avaient convaincu la demanderesse d'acheter une maison pour leur projet d'entreprise en contractant un prêt hypothécaire en son nom, puis ont omis d'effectuer les paiements, entraînant une saisie immobilière.

De plus, ils ont été jugés responsables d'avoir obtenu une carte de crédit au nom de la demanderesse à son insu.

Le tribunal a accordé des dommages-intérêts compensatoires de 156 625,17 $, des dommages-intérêts punitifs de 20 000 $ et des frais de 12 000 $.

Following a motion to consolidate 48 actions where the moving defendants were largely successful but the plaintiff successfully resisted consolidation of one action, the court determined costs.

Considering the divided success and a reasonable settlement offer made by the plaintiff, the court ordered the moving defendants to pay partial indemnity costs of $7,500 to the plaintiff and $5,522.91 to the successful co-defendant, Boston Pizza.

The plaintiff commenced 48 separate actions (38 in Superior Court, 10 in Small Claims Court) relating to various loan transactions, primarily alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against its former lawyers.

The defendant lawyers brought a motion to consolidate the actions.

The court ordered that 37 of the Superior Court actions be consolidated into a single action to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and reduce costs.

The 10 Small Claims Court actions were also consolidated and ordered to be transferred and tried together with the Superior Court action.

All actions were ordered to be case managed.

Following a motion regarding third and fourth party claims, the court determined costs.

The third party was unsuccessful in dismissing the defendants' third party claim, and the fourth parties were unsuccessful in striking the third party's fourth party claim.

The court found the third party's position regarding the third party claim to be improper and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants.

Although the fourth parties were unsuccessful, the court awarded them partial costs due to the third party's misleading conduct in issuing the fourth party claim.

The third party was ordered to pay costs to both the defendants and the fourth parties.

The third party brought a motion to either strike the third party claim against it or, alternatively, for leave to continue the fourth party claim against the fourth parties.

The action was originally commenced under the Construction Lien Act, which requires leave to add third or fourth parties.

Leave was not sought when the claims were issued.

The court found that the third party claim was saved by a previous order and acquiescence.

The court granted leave nunc pro tunc to issue the fourth party claim, finding it appropriate as the claim was issued within the limitation period and the action had practically moved to the ordinary track.