Vlad A. Calina

The respondent sought costs of $85,885.03 on a partial indemnity basis following the applicant's unsuccessful application for leave to appeal an arbitral award.

The applicant argued costs should be capped at $40,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the issues were of moderate complexity and the parties' costs outlines were similar.

After making a slight reduction for duplication of work and excessive time spent by lead counsel, the court awarded the respondent costs of $79,000 all-inclusive.

The defendant sought costs thrown away after preparing a motion to settle the terms of a decertification order, which included a request to make the plaintiff's counsel personally liable for an unpaid costs award of $37,800.

Before the motion was heard, the plaintiff's counsel paid the outstanding costs in full, obviating the need for the motion.

The court declined to award costs thrown away to the defendant, emphasizing the judicial policy of encouraging parties to resolve disputes and reduce litigation expenses.

A case conference was held to discuss next steps in a class action that was previously certified and then decertified.

The plaintiff sought to schedule a recertification motion with a new representative plaintiff, while the defendant sought to settle the terms of the decertification order, specifically seeking to make plaintiff's counsel personally liable for a previous $37,800 costs award.

The court deferred scheduling the recertification motion until the costs issue and the terms of the decertification order are resolved at an upcoming motion.

The plaintiff brought an action for specific performance or damages following the failed purchase of shares in a Volkswagen auto dealership and its land.

The parties had signed a non-binding Letter of Intent and later negotiated a revised offer via text and telephone, culminating in a Term Sheet.

Before formal Share Purchase Agreements were signed, the defendants accepted a higher offer from a third party.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding agreement on the essential terms of the revised offer.

However, the court declined to order specific performance due to the requirement for third-party consent from Volkswagen Canada, instead awarding the plaintiff $5,000,000 in damages for lost opportunity and the return of his $1,000,000 deposit.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The underlying defamation action arose from the appellants protesting outside the respondents' law office with signs alleging unpaid accounts for rehabilitation services.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the expression related to a private commercial dispute, not a matter of public interest, despite the motion judge improperly considering the appellants' motives and the manner of expression.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs order was denied.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitral award concerning the interpretation of "Appraised Value" in a long-term commercial ground lease.

The dispute centered on whether the appraised value should be based on a mixed-use residential/commercial development or a mixed-use office/commercial shopping centre, considering zoning bylaws and current use.

The arbitrator had ruled in favor of the respondent.

The applicant alleged three extricable errors of law: failure to consider binding legal authority (official plan vs. zoning bylaw), failure to apply principles of contractual interpretation, and error in excluding expert reports.

The court found that the Ground Lease, which stipulated awards were "final and binding" governed the arbitration, not a separate arbitration agreement.

It further determined that the alleged errors were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable errors of law, and that the expert reports were properly excluded as they did not assist in contractual interpretation.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff in an unpaid wages class action moved to be re-appointed as the representative plaintiff, having been removed months earlier for prioritizing his personal interests over those of the class.

Class counsel had been unable to find a replacement representative plaintiff.

The court found the plaintiff remained unsuitable due to his volatile, self-focused behavior and inability to provide independent judgment.

Consequently, the motion for re-appointment was dismissed, and the defendant's cross-motion to decertify the class action was granted.

The plaintiff, Vrancor Development Group Inc., brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property in Burlington, Ontario.

Vrancor alleged an oral joint venture agreement with the defendants, Marko Juricic, Brooklyn Contracting Inc., and Laurentian Business Centre Ltd., for the property's development, claiming breach of trust and fiduciary duty when the defendants closed on the property without Vrancor and transferred title to a company controlled by Juricic.

The defendants contended that discussions never materialized into a binding agreement.

Applying the test for CPLs, the court found a triable issue regarding Vrancor's claimed interest in the land, noting that the CPL would preserve the status quo given Vrancor's claim for a proprietary interest rather than monetary damages.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a libel action commenced by the plaintiffs, a law firm and its senior partner.

The action arose after the individual defendant protested outside the plaintiffs' offices with placards alleging the law firm was withholding funds owed to the corporate defendant for occupational therapy services.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the expression did not relate to a matter of public interest, but rather a private financial dispute between two professional firms.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs, finding compelling facts to depart from the statutory presumption of no costs for an unsuccessful moving party.

The plaintiff, Akelius Canada Ltd., sought a world-wide Mareva injunction against the defendants, 2436196 Ontario Inc. and B’Nai Fishel Corporation, to protect its ability to recover damages arising from an aborted sale of eight apartment buildings.

The plaintiff claimed $45,000,000 in its Statement of Claim, but sought an injunction for $56,564,318 based on the increased value of the properties.

The court applied the five principles for Mareva injunctions from Chitel et al v. Rothbart et al, finding that the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case and a risk of asset removal given the defendants' sale of the properties and refusal to disclose the location of proceeds.

However, the court rejected the plaintiff's requested injunction amount, noting that the Statement of Claim did not include a claim for post-closing property value increase and that the valuation was inappropriate.

The injunction was granted for $690,631.38, representing professional fees incurred, plus fixed costs of $25,000 payable by the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking disclosure of financial statements, property appraisals, and an asset purchase agreement (Timbercreek APA) from the defendants, as well as information regarding whether the defendants sought legal advice concerning the discharge of mortgages.

The court largely granted the plaintiff's requests for financial and appraisal documents, and for inspection of the Timbercreek APA, finding them relevant to damages.

However, the court denied disclosure of the substance of legal advice, affirming solicitor-client privilege, but ordered disclosure of whether legal advice was sought, as this was relevant to the defendants' claim of taking all reasonable steps.

The defendants were successful on a motion for security for costs against the foreign corporate plaintiff and sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $18,000.

The plaintiff argued for a reduced amount of $10,000, claiming divided success and excessive time spent.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the defendants were entirely successful and the delegation of work between junior and senior counsel was appropriate for the complex motion.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court fixed the defendants' costs at $15,000 all-inclusive.

This is a costs endorsement following a Rule 21 motion brought by Cams Atlas, LLC ("Cams") to dismiss counterclaims by Water Exchange, Inc. ("Water") and Tech Sonic International, Inc. ("Tech").

Cams' motion against Water was granted after Water conceded the point, but only after Cams had fully prepared.

Cams' motion against Tech was dismissed, as Tech's counterclaim was closely related to its defense.

The court found Tech entitled to costs for successfully defending the contentious part of the motion, while Cams was entitled to some costs against Water for the late concession.

The judge fixed costs, ordering Cams to pay Tech $16,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, after considering the complexity, importance of issues, and reasonable expectations of the parties.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a national class action for settlement purposes and to approve a settlement with the defendant software developer.

The action concerned a security defect in preloaded software on laptop computers that allegedly intercepted web traffic.

The court found that the criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The court also approved the settlement of $151,547 CAD and cooperation terms, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' counterclaims as an abuse of process, arguing they attempted to relitigate issues already decided in a New York judgment against one of the defendants.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the undefended counterclaim of the defendant subject to the New York judgment, as it was res judicata.

However, the court dismissed the motion regarding the counterclaim by the affiliated corporate defendant, finding that granting partial summary judgment risked inconsistent findings at trial, as the issues in the counterclaim were intertwined with the main action against that defendant.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the non-resident plaintiff, CAMS Atlas, LLC.

The plaintiff had obtained a New York default judgment against one of the defendants, Water Exchange, Inc., which was recognized in Ontario.

The plaintiff argued it would be unjust to order security for costs, alleging a complex web of interrelationships among the defendants that should make them all liable for the judgment.

The court declined to pierce the corporate veil at this preliminary stage, finding it would be premature and wrong in law.

The plaintiff was ordered to post $75,000 as security for costs.

In a proposed class action, the plaintiff moved under Rule 49 to enforce an alleged settlement with one of the defendants, Superfish Inc., prior to certification.

Counsel for Superfish requested an adjournment to obtain instructions.

The court granted the adjournment, noting that a Rule 49 motion to enforce a settlement in a proposed class action cannot proceed pre-certification.

The motion was adjourned to allow the plaintiff to properly constitute the motion by bringing it alongside a motion for certification.

The moving party, Zayo Inc., previously had its motion dismissed.

The motion sought an order for the Monitor to pay Zayo $1,228,799.81 from the proceeds of the sale of the applicants' assets.

In this costs endorsement, Zayo argued that costs are not the norm in CCAA proceedings.

The court disagreed, finding this to be an exceptional case where the normal rule of costs should apply, as the real opponents (the secured lenders and the purchaser) were not insolvent.

The court awarded costs against Zayo, fixing them at $30,000 each for Primus and BMO, and $20,000 each for Birch and the Monitor.

Zayo Inc. brought a motion seeking an order for FTI Consulting Canada Inc., as Monitor for the Primus Entities, to pay Zayo $1,228,799.81 from asset sale proceeds.

This amount represented pre-CCAA filing arrears owed to Zayo under contracts assigned to Birch Communications Inc. Zayo argued the consent process for assignment was not transparent or fair, alleging it was misled into consenting without realizing it could have leveraged Section 11.3(4) of the CCAA to demand full payment of arrears.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the consent process fair and transparent, noting Zayo's sophistication and lack of due diligence.

The court also found that granting the order would cause prejudice to secured lenders and Birch, as it would require varying existing orders and disrupt a closed transaction.

The Cetero Group brought a motion seeking entitlement to a $298,243 tax refund (carry-back refund) held by PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (PWC), as receiver of PRACS Institute Canada B.C. Ltd. The Cetero Group argued the refund was not validly assigned to PRACS, that PWC would be unjustly enriched, and that they were entitled to the refund through legal or equitable set-off due to PRACS's failure to pay under an operation support agreement.

The court found the carry-back refund was validly assigned to PRACS under an asset purchase agreement, providing a juristic reason for PWC's retention, thus defeating the unjust enrichment claim.

Furthermore, the court determined that neither legal nor equitable set-off applied, as the refund was not a debt owing by BA to PRACS, and the cross-claim for unpaid invoices was not sufficiently connected to the refund to warrant equitable set-off.

The motion was dismissed.