Thomas M. Dunn

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action seeking payment of the balance owing under a retail store construction agreement and various claimed extras.

The defendants counterclaimed for costs associated with incomplete or defective work and delay in project completion.

The court reviewed disputed extras and back‑charges arising from the defendants’ decision to complete portions of the project using their own workers as the completion deadline approached.

After assessing the evidence, the court allowed certain extras and some back‑charges while disallowing others, ultimately determining the net amount owing under the contract.

The court also held that the construction lien was timely filed and that the work constituted an improvement within the meaning of the Construction Lien Act, making the lien valid.

Following a lengthy family trial, the court determined costs on written submissions and found the responding party's disclosure failures and litigation conduct materially increased complexity and trial time.

The court declined to revisit prior costs awards and rejected the responding party's claim for personal compensation for business time.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving party, but full indemnity was not granted because the conduct did not meet an egregious bad-faith threshold.

The court fixed pre-trial, trial, and post-trial fees and disbursements totalling $74,537.43 and characterized the costs as related to child support enforcement and collection.

Following a civil trial where the plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining judgment for a loan debt, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The defendant sought approximately $35,000 in costs, arguing that the plaintiffs’ litigation conduct unnecessarily prolonged and complicated the proceeding.

The court found that the plaintiffs had engaged in inappropriate conduct, including threatening correspondence, attempts to undermine the defendant’s professional reputation, and late disclosure of documents.

Although the plaintiffs were successful on the merits, the court held that their conduct justified a significant departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

Partial indemnity costs of $17,000 were awarded to the defendant and ordered to be set off against the plaintiffs’ judgment.