Victoria R. Chiappetta

Following the dismissal of an oppression remedy application, the respondents sought substantial indemnity costs.

They argued that the application was the applicant's second unwarranted one on similar facts and that a comprehensive settlement offer, made after judicial mediation, was rejected.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs for the entire proceeding but found it fair and reasonable to award substantial indemnity costs from April 25, 2019, the date of the settlement offer.

The offer was deemed more favourable to the applicant than the outcome of the contested application, and no formal counter-offer was made.

The respondents were awarded fixed costs of $66,148.84 inclusive.

The applicant, a one-third shareholder, sought an oppression remedy under the OBCA to compel the sale of the corporation's sole asset (a property) or the purchase of his shares, due to a disagreement with the majority shareholders (the respondents) who also owned the tenant restaurant.

The court dismissed the application, finding no oppressive or unfair conduct, and that the respondents' business judgment was within a reasonable range.

The court emphasized the absence of a unanimous shareholder agreement and that mere disagreement does not amount to oppression or warrant winding up.

The Landlord, Medallion Corporation, appealed the Trustee's disallowance of its unsecured claim for damages related to the unexpired portion of a commercial lease following the tenant's bankruptcy and the Trustee's disclaimer.

The court affirmed the long-standing Ontario legal principle that a trustee's disclaimer of a lease in bankruptcy is deemed a consensual surrender, which extinguishes the tenant's obligations and precludes the landlord from claiming unsecured damages for the unexpired term beyond the preferred claim under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and Commercial Tenancies Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a successful 11-day trial where the plaintiff was awarded $604,627.09 and the defendant's $1.75 million counterclaim was dismissed, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $546,684.73.

The defendant argued for a reduced award of $200,000, claiming the plaintiff's costs were unreasonable.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full amount claimed, finding the costs proportionate to the result, justified by the defendant's unfounded fraud allegations, litigation misconduct (including refusal to admit facts, late disclosure, and causing trial delays), and the complexity introduced by the counterclaim.

The court also noted the plaintiff's counsel's superior preparedness compared to the defendant's.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured in a bus accident involving an unidentified motorist.

She sought to amend her statement of claim to add TTC Insurance Company Limited (TTCICL) as a defendant for unidentified motorist coverage under s. 265 of the Insurance Act.

TTCICL argued the claim was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the limitation period for a claim against an insurer for unidentified motorist coverage begins to run on the day after the plaintiff makes an indemnification demand which the insurer fails to satisfy.

As the plaintiff brought her motion to add TTCICL as a defendant before making such a demand that TTCICL failed to satisfy, the limitation period had not expired.

The motion to amend was granted.

This endorsement concerns the determination of costs following a settlement of a tort action for $200,000.

The plaintiff sought $190,605.74 in costs, including fees for accident benefit arbitration.

The court fixed costs at $145,605.75, reducing the tort claim costs due to proportionality and allowing a portion of accident benefit legal costs to be recovered from the tort defendant, as the defendant benefited from the plaintiff's efforts in securing those benefits.

The court also rejected the defendant's argument to limit costs based on an earlier Rule 49 offer, finding the settlement agreement for costs was unrestricted.

The Applicant sought costs following a motion for contempt, which was dismissed because the Respondent's non-compliance with a prior order was partly due to the Applicant's inaccurate documentation.

The Applicant requested costs on a substantial or partial indemnity scale, while the Respondent sought costs against the Applicant for alleged misconduct.

The court, applying Rule 57.01(1) and (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found no conduct by the Applicant warranting costs against it, but also determined that the Applicant was not entitled to costs due to its own contribution to the dispute.

Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to make no costs award on the application.

Following a simplified procedure trial where the plaintiff was awarded $69,091.12, the plaintiff sought costs of $26,198.65.

The court, considering the principle of proportionality and factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the requested costs excessive for a non-complicated case.

The court exercised its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act to fix costs at $15,000 inclusive.

The plaintiff sued the Toronto Police Services Board and two constables for damages, alleging excessive force during arrest and negligent investigation.

The court dismissed the claim in its entirety, finding that the force used by the constables was justified under s. 25 of the Criminal Code and that their investigation met the applicable standard of care, as there were reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

The court found the plaintiff's testimony lacked credibility and that his claims of injury and loss of income were not substantiated by the evidence.

This motion addressed the enforceability of paragraph 16 of a contingency fee agreement between Stockwoods LLP and the plaintiffs, which stipulated that a portion of legal costs obtained in a settlement could be included in Stockwoods' fee, subject to court approval due to exceptional circumstances.

The court also determined whether the plaintiffs were obligated to join Stockwoods in a joint application for such approval under s.28.1(8) of the Solicitor's Act.

The court found paragraph 16 enforceable and binding, compelling the plaintiffs to participate in the joint motion.

The court determined whether the plaintiff's motor vehicle policy was properly terminated by Aviva Canada Inc. The issue stemmed from insufficient funds in the insured's bank account to cover a pre-authorized premium and service charge.

The court found that Aviva complied with the policy by attempting to withdraw funds on the due date, and the shortfall was due to the bank's processing schedule (weekend/holiday) and the insured's failure to maintain sufficient funds.

Consequently, the policy was deemed properly terminated by Aviva.

The applicant, Keele Medical Properties Ltd., sought a declaration that it was exempt from a special assessment levied by the respondent, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1786, and that the resulting condominium lien was invalid.

The applicant argued inadequate disclosure in status certificates and that the lien was statute-barred.

The court found that the status certificates provided adequate disclosure of the respondent's financial difficulties and potential for a special assessment.

It also determined that the commercial units owned by the applicant were never properly levied under a prior, invalid special assessment, thus the current lien was not statute-barred.

The application was dismissed, and the special assessment and lien were declared valid and enforceable.

This is a costs judgment following a successful appeal by the respondent.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $28,029.42, while the applicants argued for no costs or a limit of $12,000.

The court awarded the respondent the full amount requested, considering factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The decision emphasized the respondent's success, the significant importance and complexity of the legal issues, and the reasonableness of counsel's hourly rates and time expended.

The respondent brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the applicant's application as frivolous and vexatious.

The court, finding the application potentially frivolous, ordered the registrar to issue a notice to the applicant to make submissions against dismissal, stayed the application pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, and restricted further filings pending the outcome of the written hearing.

This is a costs judgment following an interim proceeding where an injunction was granted.

The court received costs submissions from all parties.

However, due to allegations of subsequent events that may impact the appropriate costs award, the judge exercised discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act to reserve the costs of the interim proceeding to the trial judge or, with consent, to the judge disposing of an oppression application.

The court emphasized that costs are not appropriately awarded on the interim proceeding until an assessment of evidence and findings of fact considering these subsequent events can be made.

The court determined custody and access for the parties' five-year-old son.

The father sought sole custody due to the mother's untreated psychiatric illness (delusional disorder) and inconsistent access attendance.

The mother denied the diagnosis and sought joint custody.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to award sole custody to the father with supervised access to the mother, given the mother's refusal of recommended treatment and other concerns regarding her living arrangements and participation in the OCL investigation.

The existing restraining order against the mother was terminated.

The applicants initiated a constitutional challenge to sections of the Children’s Law Reform Act and Vital Statistics Act concerning parental recognition for LGBTQ parents.

The respondent failed to file an Answer within the 30-day period and subsequently brought motions for an open-ended extension and directions.

The applicants brought a cross-motion.

The court dismissed all motions but, recognizing the complexity and importance of the constitutional issues, granted the respondent an extension to file an Answer and set a timetable for the litigation.

The respondent was sanctioned with $2,000 in costs for its unreasonable procedural conduct in delaying the filing of its motion for extension.

Following a 16‑day family law trial in which the applicant was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award after 15 years of litigation.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs exceeding $777,000, arguing the respondent engaged in bad faith conduct and unreasonable litigation behaviour, including misleading evidence about property ownership and income.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith and repeatedly frustrated the litigation process.

The court held that full recovery costs were appropriate and rejected arguments based on proportionality and inability to pay.

Costs were fixed at $716,711.11 in favour of the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion in a family law proceeding seeking temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, an order compelling the respondent to refinance the mortgage, financial disclosure, and undifferentiated interim child and spousal support of $10,000 per month.

The respondent brought a cross‑motion seeking an order for sale of the matrimonial home.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to compel a party to refinance a mortgage where success depends on a third‑party lender’s approval, and found insufficient evidence that exclusive possession was in the child’s best interests.

However, due to incomplete and inconsistent financial disclosure from the respondent, the court relied on a prior consent arrangement between the parties and ordered interim undifferentiated support of $10,000 monthly along with further disclosure obligations.

An estates dispute arose over ownership of a residential property transferred by elderly parents to a daughter as a joint tenant without consideration.

The applicants alleged the transfer was invalid due to non est factum, undue influence, or a resulting trust, and alternatively argued that a later transfer severed the joint tenancy.

The court found the parents understood the nature and consequences of the transaction and intended to make a complete inter vivos gift, thereby rebutting the presumption of resulting trust under Pecore.

The court also held the later transfer into the daughter’s sole legal title accompanied by a declaration of trust did not sever the joint tenancy.

The property was ordered sold with net proceeds divided equally between the surviving parent and the daughter, and the daughter’s claim for reimbursement for renovations was dismissed for lack of proof.