Terry Corsianos

This decision provides supplementary reasons for costs following a motion brought by the Pappas Defendants for costs of a discontinued action.

The Master had previously awarded the Pappas Defendants $22,800.00 in costs for the discontinued action.

In this supplementary decision, the Master considered the costs of the motion itself.

The Pappas Defendants sought $10,000.00 for the motion costs, while the plaintiff argued for no costs.

The Master found the Pappas Defendants to be the successful party on the motion, but noted that the costs awarded for the action were only about one-third of what was sought, and that the plaintiff had some justification for commencing the action, and the Pappas Defendants failed to make a reasonable offer to settle.

Consequently, the Master ordered the plaintiff to pay one-third of the Pappas Defendants' partial indemnity costs for the motion, fixed at $4,300.00.

Following the plaintiff's discontinuance of a fraud action, the defendants brought a motion for full indemnity costs of approximately $65,000 under Rule 23.05.

The court held that the 2009 amendment to Rule 23.05 removed the presumptive entitlement to costs, requiring the court to exercise its general discretion.

Finding that the plaintiff had some justification for commencing the action but ultimately discontinued it for economic reasons, the court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs.

However, because the defendants unreasonably rejected a without-costs dismissal offer and countered with an inflated costs demand, the court limited their costs recovery to those incurred prior to the plaintiff's offer, fixing the award at $22,800.

The appellants agreed to purchase the respondents' property but failed to complete the purchase after the market declined and they were unable to sell their own home.

The respondents sued for damages and were awarded summary judgment for $135,841.24 and $8,000 in costs.

The appellants appealed on three grounds: denial of procedural fairness, misinterpretation of the purchase agreement, and improper mitigation of damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three arguments and upheld the lower court judgment, fixing costs at $7,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellants sought to review an order dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment.

The original action arose from a purchase of equipment in November 2007, with default judgment obtained in March 2011.

The appellants delayed over three years before bringing a motion to set aside the default judgment, which was dismissed by the motion judge.

The appellants then appealed but failed to perfect their appeal, resulting in dismissal for delay in April 2015.

After over three years of inaction, they brought a motion to review the dismissal order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the delay extraordinary and the equities of the situation favored dismissal despite the appellants' arguable defences on the merits.

The applicant sought an order setting aside a decision by Doherty J.A. dismissing his motion for leave to intervene as an added party in an appeal.

The applicant claimed to be the effective alter ego of the appellants and sought to adduce evidence he characterized as important and not previously presented.

The court found that the applicant had not satisfied the threshold criteria under Rule 13.03(1) for intervention as an added party, noting that the arguments he sought to make were more properly made by the appellants through their counsel.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, Henry Jung and Long Ocean Holding Ltd., brought two motions for summary judgment seeking the return of deposits plus interest for commercial and residential units in the former Trump Tower.

The defendant, Talon International Inc., counterclaimed for forfeiture of the deposits, alleging breach of contract.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that the agreements of purchase and sale were terminated through no fault of the purchasers due to Talon's receivership and subsequent sale of the units to a third party.

The court also found Talon's statements of adjustments to be aggressive and overreaching, and that the plaintiffs' actions for specific performance were not a breach of contract.

The Receiver sought a declaration that a claimant did not hold an equitable mortgage against a property and had no claim against two related companies.

The claimant asserted an equitable mortgage, arguing his investment was intended for a pooled mortgage on the property.

The court found no objective evidence of a common intention between the claimant and the company's president to secure the investment with a mortgage on the property.

The claimant's request for an equitable mortgage or an equitable lien was denied, as there was no evidence that the funds reached the property-owning company.

The Receiver's motion was granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for further document production, including an independent search of a defendant's emails, and costs thrown away due to a trial adjournment.

The defendants brought motions for leave to amend a statement of defence and for production of settlement agreements between the plaintiffs and other defendants.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' discovery motion, finding they had declared readiness for trial despite knowing of the alleged document deficiencies.

The defendants' motion for production of settlement agreements was granted in part, with individual settlement amounts ordered redacted.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other torts arising from criminal charges related to a 1992 arson.

The court found the 63-page statement of claim to be prolix, repetitive, argumentative, and replete with evidence, violating the rules of pleading.

The court struck the entire statement of claim but granted the plaintiffs 60 days leave to amend, providing detailed guidance on how to properly plead the causes of action.

The court declined to strike the negligent investigation claims without leave to amend, noting the law in this area is unsettled.

Following earlier reasons on a motion, the court determined the issue of costs and related financial matters.

Although success on the motion was divided, the moving party succeeded against one defendant regarding recovery of a $90,000 refund.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000 plus HST and certain disbursements against that defendant, while declining to order costs for other dismissed aspects of the motion.

The court also confirmed that $60,000 previously paid into court would remain there and declined to award prejudgment interest at a rate higher than that provided under the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for compensatory and punitive damages arising from an investment scheme.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract for failure to refund his investment, as well as fraud and conspiracy to defraud.

The court granted partial summary judgment against the corporate defendant for $90,000, finding a binding agreement to refund the 2007 investment.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment on the fraud and conspiracy claims, concluding that a full appreciation of the conflicting evidence and credibility issues required a trial.