T. Rhaintre

This endorsement concerns the costs of a previous motion where Canadian Lakehead Exhibition (CLE) sought further documentary discovery from 1723022 Ontario Ltd. General Partner of TheSportsdome Limited Partnership (Sportsdome).

The court found mixed success on the underlying motion, with CLE being "more successful" but both parties contributing to the motion's length due to CLE's overly broad initial requests and Sportsdome's uncooperative stance.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $1500.00, to be paid by Sportsdome to CLE, significantly less than CLE's requested $5,165.33.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's claim, the defendants sought full indemnity costs of $84,327.60.

The court found that while the claim was not explicitly vexatious, the lack of evidence to support the plaintiff's position warranted an award of substantial indemnity costs to express the court's disapproval.

Applying the principle of reasonableness, the court reduced the requested amount and fixed costs at $40,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiffs sought enhanced costs after successfully resisting the defendants' motion to set aside a partial summary judgment.

The defendants argued for fixed costs, citing no reprehensible conduct and potential financial hardship.

The court, applying Rule 57.01(1) factors, the contractual "reasonable sums" clause, and the proportionality principle under Rule 1.04(1.1), found the plaintiffs' claim for $15,011.88 disproportionate.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,000.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be paid by the defendants within 60 days.

Following success on a summary judgment motion, the defendants sought costs to be awarded personally against the plaintiff's lawyer, Mr. Brian MacIvor, under Rule 57.07(2).

The court clarified that such a request cannot be satisfied by usual costs submissions and requires a formal motion supported by affidavit evidence, allowing the solicitor to respond.

The court outlined the two-part test for personal costs against a solicitor, requiring that costs be incurred unnecessarily and that the court exercise its discretion.

The request for personal costs was dismissed in the context of the costs submissions, with the court directing the defendants to bring a proper motion if they wished to pursue the matter.

The plaintiff, Perhol Construction Ltd., moved to set aside an administrative dismissal of its action for delay, seeking to revive its claim for $450,000 against the defendants, 1698358 Ontario Ltd. o/a “Aloft International” and the Estate of Donald Wing.

The action had been dismissed by the local registrar under Rule 48.14.

The Estate opposed the motion, arguing prejudice and lack of success prospects.

The court found acceptable explanations for the delay, including compassionate reasons, issues with counsel, and the Estate's own non-compliance with court orders.

The court also found no significant non-compensable prejudice to the Estate.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was granted, and the action was revived with a new litigation timetable.

No costs were awarded.

The defendants moved to set aside a partial summary judgment granted against them based on promissory notes and a general security agreement.

They argued accident or mistake in failing to attend the original motion and raised defences of non est factum and equitable set-off.

The court found that while the failure to attend was due to mistake, the proposed defences lacked merit.

The defence of non est factum was not supported by evidence, and equitable set-off is not available for claims on bills of exchange.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs would suffer greater prejudice if the judgment were set aside, and therefore dismissed the motion.

The applicant sought a declaration that its relationship with the respondents was a landlord-tenant relationship under the Commercial Tenancies Act, allowing it to remove its equipment from the respondents' premises.

The respondents argued the relationship was a joint business venture.

The court found that the parties had entered into two separate agreements—an operating agreement and a lease—and that the arrangement lacked the requisite elements of a joint venture, such as mutual control and joint property interest.

The court declared that a commercial tenancy existed and ordered the application to be tried together with the respondents' civil action for damages.

The moving party brought a motion for directions challenging the validity of his late mother's 2006 will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by his brother, the responding party.

The responding party brought a cross-motion to set aside or vary a preservation order previously granted without notice.

The court found that the moving party met the minimal evidentiary threshold required to call the will's validity into question and granted the order for directions.

The court also varied the preservation order to narrow its scope, finding that while the original order was too broad, the assets in dispute met the test for preservation.

The defendants, T-Bay Movers Corporation and Konrad Kuhne, moved for partial summary judgment on their counterclaim against the plaintiff, Sean Bouttell, seeking specific performance of a "Second Contract" to unwind a previous share purchase agreement.

The plaintiff argued that the email exchanges did not constitute a binding contract and raised issues of illegality and non-compliance with the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The court found that the email exchanges clearly evidenced a meeting of the minds, forming a binding "Second Contract." The plaintiff's arguments regarding the conditional nature of the agreement and illegality were rejected due to lack of credible evidence.

The court granted specific performance to the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's statement of claim in its entirety, as it was premised on the non-existence of the "Second Contract."