Thomas Benstead

In a costs-only decision following trial reasons, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $53,000 plus disbursements after partial success on breach of contract and failure on negligent misrepresentation.

The court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and r. 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing reasonableness, proportionality, divided success, and litigation conduct.

Although the plaintiff was nominally successful at trial, the court found the plaintiff recovered only a fraction of its claim, overclaimed legal time, and engaged in concerning conduct, including issues around a purported licence and HST-related purchase price misstatement.

The court held substantial indemnity was unwarranted and ultimately declined to award any costs to the plaintiff.

A son sued his mother for conversion of property, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and sought a constructive trust on her condominium and punitive damages.

The plaintiff alleged his mother used funds from his bank account for her own benefit, including to accelerate mortgage payments and purchase a condominium in India.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish conversion, unjust enrichment, or breach of fiduciary duty.

The mother acted in good faith while managing family finances during a period of financial constraint.

The plaintiff left his mother's home with no debt, a graduate degree, a fully-paid car, and $90,000 in savings.

The claim was dismissed.

Diesel Freight Forwarders Ltd. (DFF) sought to enforce minutes of settlement against AYS Holdings Inc. (AYS) after AYS breached payment terms.

AYS admitted the breach but argued against strict enforcement, citing cash flow issues.

The court found the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract, distinguishing it from a Rule 49 offer, and ruled that AYS had not demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant relief from the agreed-upon consequences of default.

DFF's motion was granted, and AYS was ordered to pay the accelerated amount plus interest and costs.

The Plaintiff brought an urgent motion for the judge's recusal based on a reasonable apprehension of bias, alleging predisposition against the Plaintiff and/or her counsel.

This motion followed a mistrial declared due to counsel's conduct (displaying an image of Charles Manson to the jury while a witness testified).

The Plaintiff also sought to have the matter remitted for a new trial before a new judge, which the court noted was superfluous as it was already precluded from hearing the new trial.

The court addressed the recusal motion specifically concerning the outstanding costs issue from the aborted proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no substantial and serious grounds to support an allegation of a reasonable apprehension of bias, and awarded costs to the Defendant on a substantial indemnity basis, noting the motion was brought with the sole purpose of avoiding a costs decision.