V.R. Chiappetta

Following a trial where the respondent was completely successful, the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no bad faith or unreasonable conduct by the appellants.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $79,000, finding this to be a fair and reasonable amount.

The mother brought a motion to change a final shared custody order, seeking sole custody and permission to relocate the children from Sault Ste.

Marie to Cold Lake, Alberta.

The father opposed the relocation and sought sole custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the parents' high conflict and inability to co-parent.

The court dismissed the mother's request to relocate, finding it was not in the children's best interests to be removed from their established routines and their father's regular involvement.

The court declined to award sole custody to either parent to avoid exacerbating the conflict, but granted the father final decision-making authority on major medical, educational, and religious issues, and ordered that the children reside primarily with the father.

The mother was ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income.

The appellant, acting as estate trustee for the late Sophia De Jonge, appealed the disallowance of a property claim by the bankruptcy trustee of the estate of Jeffrey Wilson.

Jeffrey, who was the executor of Sophia's estate, had transferred real property to himself without satisfying a significant tax liability owed by Sophia's estate.

Jeffrey subsequently died bankrupt.

The court found that Jeffrey breached his fiduciary duty as executor by failing to pay the estate's debts before distributing assets to himself.

The court imposed a constructive trust over the real property in favour of Sophia's estate to remedy the unjust enrichment of Jeffrey's bankrupt estate, allowing the appellant to trace the beneficial interest into the net sale proceeds.

The appellants appealed the disallowance of their claims in a bankruptcy proposal proceeding.

They claimed a 20% beneficial interest in the proceeds of a commercial property sale based on an amended trust declaration, and advanced an unsecured claim for damages alleging oppressive conduct.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no certainty of intention to create an express trust, no basis for a constructive trust, and no evidence of oppressive conduct by the bankrupt corporation.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action against the Toronto Police Services Board and two officers for alleged gratuitous assault and conspiracy, the defendants sought costs of $77,906.58 on a partial indemnity scale.

The court considered the complexity of the issues, the significant monetary claim, the importance of the matter to the officers, and the self-represented plaintiff's limited ability to pay.

Balancing these factors, the court fixed costs at $50,000 inclusive, payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a dental hygienist, was employed by the defendant's dental practice for 19 years.

During her employment, the employer restructured its business entities and required the plaintiff to sign three successive employment contracts, each attempting to limit her termination entitlements to the minimums under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Upon her termination without cause, the plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal.

The court held that the plaintiff's employment was continuous despite the corporate restructuring and that the employment contracts were unenforceable for lack of fresh consideration.

The court awarded the plaintiff 15 months' reasonable notice at common law, less amounts mitigated.

Following the defendant's unsuccessful motion to transfer and consolidate the action, the successful plaintiff sought costs of $7,082.73 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant argued costs should be in the cause or parties should bear their own costs.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding the plaintiff entitled to costs payable forthwith.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $6,000 inclusive.

The plaintiff brought an action for defamation after the defendant disseminated anonymous allegations.

The parties settled the action for $10,000 in damages, leaving costs to be determined by the court.

The plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found the settlement was less favourable than the offer and awarded partial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $44,446.26, with the court noting that costs in defamation matters often exceed damages.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Newmarket to Toronto to be heard immediately after a related action commenced by the plaintiff in Toronto.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that transferring the action would delay the Toronto action, which was already set down for trial.

The court noted the plaintiff's advanced age and the fact that she had been financing the Toronto litigation for five years.

The court held that the plaintiff's choice of venue was entitled to deference and there was no risk of inconsistent findings.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced a proceeding seeking over $170 million in damages against the defendants.

The court dismissed the proceeding in writing pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that the 19-page pleading was void of any known cause of action, sought relief outside the court's jurisdiction, and was laced with conjecture and speculation, rendering it frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action seeking over $1.5 billion in damages against the defendants.

The court dismissed the proceeding in writing pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that the 17-page pleading was void of any known cause of action, sought relief outside the court's jurisdiction, and was laced with conjecture and speculation, rendering it frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The defendant submitted a written request under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the request, finding that it was not plain and obvious on the face of the statement of claim that it met the threshold for summary dismissal.

The court noted that Rule 2.1 is not for close calls and that any lack of merit should be addressed under Rules 20 or 21.

The defendants submitted a written request under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to summarily dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court denied the request, finding that it was not plain and obvious on the face of the statement of claim that the action met this threshold.

The court noted that Rule 2.1 is not for close calls and that any lack of merit should be addressed under Rule 20 or Rule 21.

The court issued a notice considering the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After reviewing the plaintiff's submissions and the claim, the court found the pleading devoid of material facts, essential elements of causes of action, and necessary particulars.

The claim was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The court issued a Form 2.1A notice to the plaintiff regarding a Statement of Claim that consisted of a single paragraph seeking to protect a future right to sue.

The plaintiff failed to respond.

The court dismissed the claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as it was devoid of any discernable legal cause of action.

The defendants requested a review of the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the claim appeared frivolous and vexatious on its face.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiffs to make submissions as to why the claim should not be dismissed, and stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The respondent was entirely successful in having the applicant's application dismissed and sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent relied on its status as a non-profit condominium corporation and the explicit terms of its declaration and by-laws, which provided for full indemnity costs.

The court found no reason to ignore the governing documentation and awarded the respondent its requested costs of $164,443.16 on a full indemnity basis.

The self-represented applicant sought leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to bring a motion for a stay pending the appeal of an order declaring her a vexatious litigant, and leave to continue certain proceedings.

The court denied the application, finding no reasonable grounds for the proposed proceedings, no serious issue to be tried, no evidence of irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the opposing parties.

The court also noted the applicant failed to serve the affected parties as required.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1 notice to dismiss the plaintiff's action against 29 defendants.

The plaintiff's statement of claim was 35 pages long, unintelligible, and raised matters similar to those previously dismissed as frivolous and vexatious in numerous other proceedings.

The court found the claim had no legal basis and constituted an abuse of process.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent breached their software distribution agreement by developing and marketing a competing radio scheduling product prior to the end of the agreement's winding-up period.

The applicant also sought a springboard injunction.

The court interpreted the agreement and found that it did not prohibit the respondent from developing its own product for the US market or marketing a competitive product during the notice or winding-up periods.

The court also found no breach of the duty of honest performance by the applicant, but ultimately dismissed the application as the respondent had not breached the agreement.