Thomas G. Conway

The Applicant law firm sought assessment of outstanding accounts.

The Respondent client brought a cross-motion to stay the assessment proceedings pending the outcome of a negligence action against the law firm.

The court granted the stay, finding that the negligence action raised serious allegations, involved significantly higher damages, and its outcome would likely determine the assessment, thus avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting findings.

The plaintiff, a 53-year-old pharmacist with 16 years and 3 months of service, brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages against her former employer.

The employer conceded dismissal without cause, with the dispute centering on the reasonable notice period and associated damages.

The plaintiff sought 23 months' notice, while the defendant argued for approximately one month per year of service.

The court considered factors such as age, length of service (including a short break), character of employment, availability of similar employment, and mitigation efforts.

The plaintiff sought damages of approximately $4.8 million for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the duty of good faith arising from a renewable energy contract.

The plaintiff acquired the secured debt of a company that had a contract with the defendant to build a biomass energy facility.

When the company filed for bankruptcy, the defendant treated the contract as automatically terminated pursuant to its terms, requiring the plaintiff to seek a new agreement.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the contract unambiguously provided for automatic termination upon bankruptcy, the defendant did not act in bad faith, and the plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages and prove an enforceable agreement for the sale of the contract.

The applicants, several humane societies, challenged the governance model of the respondent provincial animal welfare society.

After the respondent successfully resisted the application following a membership vote, the parties sought costs.

The applicants argued they should be shielded from costs as public interest litigants.

The court rejected this argument, finding the dispute was primarily about internal governance and control rather than a matter of public importance.

The court apportioned costs based on the stages of litigation and ordered the applicants (excluding one that withdrew) to pay $100,000 in costs to the respondent.

The Starcall Companies brought a motion for summary judgment to recover monies paid under protest to Bell Mobility, disputing an alleged debt and arguing it was statute-barred.

Bell Mobility counter-sought summary judgment.

The court found Bell Mobility failed to prove the debt was outstanding and that, even if it existed, it was not a demand obligation.

Consequently, the Starcall Companies' motion for summary judgment was granted, and Bell Mobility's claim was dismissed.

The applicant creditors sought to continue an application for a bankruptcy order against the debtor, The Quiet Voice Productions Inc., after abandoning a partially argued motion.

The debtor had filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal.

The court declined to hear the bankruptcy application immediately due to time limitations and the applicants' failure to allow previously ordered cross-examinations on affidavits.

The court issued orders to manage the proceedings, including directions for the proposal vote, future hearings for the bankruptcy application or proposal approval, and completion of cross-examinations, while also freezing the debtor's funds.

Following a decision granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The court found the motion was necessary, as the defendant only admitted a specific amount owing in the face of the motion.

The plaintiff was awarded costs of $15,000 on a partial indemnity scale, payable forthwith.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid consulting fees related to the development of solar energy projects under the Feed-in Tariff program.

The defendants admitted liability for a portion of the fees but disputed the remainder, raising issues of contract interpretation, milestone definitions, and the inclusion of certain projects.

The court granted partial summary judgment for the admitted debt of $184,688 and ordered a trial for the remaining issues, finding that the contract's interpretation required a deeper understanding of the factual matrix that could not be resolved on the summary judgment record.

The applicants were successful on an interim motion permitting the individual applicant to resume his day-to-day involvement in the parties' businesses.

The court was asked to determine the costs of the motion.

The respondents argued costs should be in the cause, while the applicants sought substantial indemnity costs payable immediately.

The court found that the respondent's conduct in unilaterally ousting the applicant without colour of right justified an order of costs in any event of the cause.

However, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $23,810.59 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The moving party sought to set aside a prior order dismissing a consolidation motion and to set aside a notice of discontinuance in a related professional negligence action.

The motion alleged that a tolling agreement allowing the plaintiff in the other action to recommence proceedings against solicitors rendered the discontinuance a sham and an abuse of process.

The court held that although the existence of the tolling agreement ought to have been disclosed at the earlier motion, the failure to do so did not amount to fraud on the court or justify setting aside the dismissal order under Rule 59.06(2).

The court further held that the moving party lacked standing to set aside the notice of discontinuance in litigation to which she was not a party and had shown no substantive prejudice from the deferral of that action.

The motion was dismissed and the responding parties were awarded costs.

The court determined costs arising from a motion permitting the plaintiff to amend its claim to increase damages from $40 million to $650 million.

The defendants sought to set aside a previously ordered $10,000 costs award in favour of the plaintiff and requested $125,000 for costs allegedly thrown away due to the amendment.

The court held there was no basis to revisit the earlier costs award and found the evidence insufficient to support the claimed amount of wasted costs.

While some duplication of work and strategic reassessment was inevitable due to the expanded claim, much of the claimed time related to responding to the amended action rather than wasted steps.

The court awarded the defendants limited compensation for duplication of work and set off that amount against the prior costs award.

Following a successful motion to amend a statement of claim, the moving party sought partial indemnity costs of $12,227.50.

The court considered the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs but also the rule that prejudice caused by pleading amendments may be remedied through costs.

After reviewing the costs outlines, the court found portions of the claim excessive, including estimated travel costs and fees for junior counsel appearing on the motion.

Applying the factors under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $10,000.

Payment was deferred pending the outcome of an appeal and any further arguments concerning terms of the amendment.

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to increase the damages sought from $40 million to $650 million and to clarify allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation arising from the purchase of a company under a share purchase agreement.

The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing it fundamentally changed the litigation, was legally untenable, highly prejudicial, and constituted an abuse of process because the agreement limited recovery to an escrow fund absent fraud by the shareholders.

The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, holding that amendments must be granted unless the claim is untenable, causes non-compensable prejudice, or constitutes an abuse of process.

Although the amendment significantly expanded the claim and came late in the litigation, the court found the proposed claim was not clearly doomed to fail and that any prejudice could be addressed through procedural adjustments and costs.

Leave to amend the pleading was therefore granted.

Following a successful Rule 21 motion striking a statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The moving defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing that the proceeding duplicated existing litigation and required significant effort to defend.

The court held that elevated costs are generally justified only where Rule 49 offers to settle apply or where the losing party’s conduct warrants sanction.

Finding no such circumstances, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis and reduced the claimed amount after considering proportionality and the reasonableness of more than 240 hours billed for a two‑day motion.