Wendy Ngai

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing and a timetable order to set the action down for trial.

The defendants opposed, seeking dismissal for delay.

The underlying action was a subrogated claim by TD Insurance for foundation damage to the plaintiff's home, allegedly caused by construction at the Chinese embassy.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and the action for delay, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to lack of transparency, failure to obtain a confidentiality order, inappropriate venue, and remediation work done without notice to the defendants.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a substantial indemnity basis for PCL and fixed amounts for the other parties.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following two applications concerning the valuation of shares in 438056 Ontario Limited and the sale of a property under the Partition Act.

The court found divided success on the share valuation issues, leading to no costs award for that portion.

However, the Estate of Silvio Marsili was successful in its discrete claim for relief under the Partition Act, entitling it to costs for that specific aspect of the application.

Two applications were brought to determine the fair market value of shares held by the late Silvio Marsili in 438506 Ontario Limited, pursuant to a buy-sell agreement triggered by his death.

The parties' expert business valuators disagreed on valuation methodology, EBITDA normalizations, contingent liabilities, and the minority discount.

The court resolved the specific valuation disputes, preferring the respondent's expert on methodology but the applicant's expert on several normalizations and contingent liabilities.

The court directed the experts to prepare revised valuation opinions incorporating its findings.

The court also granted the applicant's request for an order for the sale of a jointly owned property under the Partition Act.

The appellant purchased a recreational trailer and left it for free storage with the respondents.

The trailer was stolen from the dealership.

The appellant sued for negligence, but the trial judge found the respondents were gratuitous bailees and met the standard of care, finding no negligence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in determining the standard of care, failing to consider foreseeability of theft, and misapprehending expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that the respondents were not negligent under any standard of care, had addressed foreseeability of theft with security measures, and did not misapprehend expert evidence regarding security improvements.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action regarding a stolen RV, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49.10 offer of $15,000.

The court found the offer was a token amount and not meaningful, awarding costs on a partial indemnity basis instead.

The court also reduced the claimed costs due to excessive preparation time billed by junior counsel, fixing the final costs award at $60,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff purchased an auto parts business from two of the defendants and sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and non-solicitation clauses.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants established a competing business just outside the restricted radius and used a related company and former employees to solicit customers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were breached, failed to prove irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The plaintiff purchased an RV from the defendants and left it at their dealership for storage until his campsite was ready.

The RV was stolen from the dealership's lot.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for negligence as a bailee.

The court found that the defendants were a gratuitous bailee and therefore only liable for gross negligence.

After reviewing expert evidence on the dealership's security system, the court concluded the defendants met the requisite standard of care and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff brought an undefended motion for summary judgment against the defendants for breach of a vehicle lease agreement.

The defendants stopped making payments and the leased vehicle was subsequently destroyed, with the insurer denying the claim.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, as the evidence of the breach was uncontroverted.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for damages, pre-judgment interest at the contractual rate of 20%, and costs.