Theodore Rotenberg

The parties reached an agreement on the calculation of prejudgment interest and costs following a previous court ruling.

Prejudgment interest was determined to be $51,619.51, and costs were agreed upon at $128,129.17.

The endorsement details the agreed terms, including the impact of Rule 49 offers to settle on the breakdown of partial and substantial indemnity costs.

The court ordered that the approved judgment reflecting these terms shall be issued.

Atlas Dewatering Corporation sought prejudgment interest at an average rate of 1.8% from the commencement of proceedings, while Harvie Construction Inc. argued for the presumptive rate of 0.8%.

The court, applying section 130 of the Courts of Justice Act and principles from Graham v. Rourke, found that the 1% difference between the average rate and the presumptive rate was not significant enough to warrant deviation from the presumptive rate.

The court ordered the prejudgment interest rate to be 0.8%.

This case involved a contract dispute between a general contractor (Harvie Construction Inc.) and its dewatering subcontractor (Atlas Dewatering Corporation) concerning unpaid invoices for a municipal reconstruction project.

Atlas claimed breach of contract and unjust enrichment for base contract work and additional services.

Harvie asserted a fixed-price contract, a "pay when paid" arrangement for extras, and challenged the validity of Atlas's construction lien.

The court found Atlas's lien properly preserved, dismissed Harvie's counterclaim, and determined the contract terms were reflected in Atlas's "Second Quote" which allowed for additional charges beyond the lump sum.

The court rejected the "pay when paid" defense, finding it unreliable and inconsistent with the parties' conduct.

Atlas was awarded judgment for the outstanding balance, including approved and disputed additional work.

Following a trial judgment in favour of the plaintiff, the parties made written submissions on the quantification of prejudgment interest and costs.

The court fixed prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 1.3 percent.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the defendants engaged in egregious, scandalous, and outrageous conduct throughout the litigation, including misleading the court and breaching a court order.

The plaintiff's costs were fixed at $568,292.05.

The parties settled the appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed with costs payable by the appellants in the all-inclusive sum of $6,500.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking the return of $70,000 from a forfeited deposit, which was paid to the defendant realtor as commission.

The plaintiff alleged he was misled into signing a mutual release without proper legal advice, believing he was legally obliged to pay the commission despite the transaction's non-completion not being his fault.

The defendants asserted the payment was based on a subsequent verbal agreement providing consideration.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of credibility regarding the plaintiff's receipt of legal advice, alleged misrepresentation, duress, and the existence of the verbal agreement, which necessitate a full trial.

Deep Foundations Contractors Inc. sought full indemnity costs against B. Gottardo Construction Ltd. and its principal, David Gottardo, jointly and severally, following the dismissal of Gottardo's counterclaim and cross-motion.

The court found David Gottardo personally liable for costs due to his wilful disobedience of a court order for financial disclosure, which caused significant delay and unnecessary expense.

The court awarded full indemnity costs, finding Gottardo's and David Gottardo's conduct reprehensible and outrageous.

The purchasers signed an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a new home and paid a $10,000 deposit, but attempted to cancel the agreement the next day.

The Small Claims Court ordered the vendor to return $9,300 of the deposit, finding the vendor had not proven damages.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment and dismissed the purchasers' claim.

The court held that a true deposit may be forfeited without proof of damages upon a purchaser's default, and the purchasers failed to establish that the forfeiture was unconscionable or out of all proportion to the losses suffered to warrant relief from forfeiture.