Stuart Ian Robert Gordon

Following a default judgment granted on January 5, 2026, the plaintiff's counsel advised by letter that the failure to seek costs in the original endorsement was inadvertent.

The plaintiff subsequently sought costs on a partial indemnity scale of approximately $6,000 inclusive of HST, plus disbursements of $832.10 and HST of $93.35.

The court found the Bill of Costs to be poorly prepared, as it failed to provide totals for time or disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants.

The court granted the motion, finding the facts supported judgment in the amounts set out in the draft judgment.

The court also declared that the judgment debts arose from fraudulent misrepresentations under section 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and would survive any present or future bankruptcy proceedings by the defendants.

No costs were sought or ordered.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of three decisions arising from a single summary judgment motion regarding the status of a disputed portion of a road ("Road A") in the Township of Coleman.

The appellants sought a declaration that the road was a public, common, or access road to facilitate subdivision approval and claimed damages for alleged municipal misfeasance.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s use of partial summary judgment, nor in his findings that the road was neither a public nor common road.

The court also dismissed motions to admit fresh evidence and denied leave to appeal the costs order.

The court awarded the Applicants partial indemnity costs in the amount of $88,743.94 after finding that the Respondent developer was not entitled to charge certain adjustment amounts on closing under the agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found the Developer's conduct increased costs but did not rise to the level warranting substantial indemnity.

The decision reviews the appropriate scale and quantum of costs, referencing the Developer's failure to provide information and the resulting bifurcation of the proceeding.

The applicants, purchasers of units in a townhouse complex, sought a declaration that the developer was not entitled to charge them certain adjustment amounts on closing under their agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found that the developer was not entitled to pass on utility infrastructure costs paid to contractors, trades, and other third parties, but only those paid to the municipality or utility service providers, and for meter installation.

The court also found the developer was not entitled to charge $800 for an extension of the closing date.

The application was granted, and a reference on damages was directed.