W. Brad Hanna

Following the vacating of an ex parte order due to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, the respondent sought costs of the motion.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, declining to award a higher scale as the applicant's conduct was not reprehensible.

The court allowed recovery for the value of work performed by the respondent's US counsel in drafting affidavits, noting that while foreign counsel cannot charge legal fees in Ontario, a fair and reasonable amount for the preparation work should be indemnified to avoid a windfall to the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $80,000 all-inclusive.

The defendant was successful on a motion for security for costs and sought partial indemnity costs of $41,616.76.

The plaintiff argued the requested costs were excessive and suggested $25,000 in the cause.

The court agreed the defendant's requested costs were excessive, noting the defendant was only partially successful in the quantum of security ordered.

The court fixed the defendant's costs at $25,000, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff purchaser and defendant vendor entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property.

The transaction failed to close after a dispute over zoning conditions and disclosure of OMB mediation details.

The plaintiff sued for specific performance and moved for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that while there was a triable issue regarding an interest in land, the equities favoured the defendant because the property was not unique and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court also dismissed the defendant's motion, as the plaintiff's claim was not frivolous or vexatious.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from an alleged franchise agreement and negligent misrepresentations regarding the viability of a Mitsubishi dealership.

The court found that the plaintiffs' action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claim more than two years before commencing the action.

Furthermore, the court held that the alleged misrepresentations were forward-looking forecasts, which are not actionable, and that the entire agreement and release clauses in the dealer agreement provided a complete defence.

The action was dismissed, and the defendant's counterclaim for an unpaid debt was allowed.