Whitten

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion to set aside a noting in default and default judgment, the court determined the costs payable to the plaintiffs.

The court noted the defendants' unreasonable litigation behaviour, including relitigating past issues and making baseless allegations.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $13,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a mid-trial settlement of a personal injury claim for $450,000, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the plaintiffs.

The court significantly reduced the plaintiffs' claimed fees from over $335,000 to $80,000, citing bloated docketing, failure to correct discovery evidence under Rule 31.09, and the late discovery of damaging social media evidence.

Certain disbursements for expert witnesses and investigators were also disallowed as not reasonably necessary.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' claim regarding a failed real estate transaction, the court received written submissions on costs.

The applicants argued each party should bear their own costs, while the respondents sought costs, noting the applicants' failure to accept a generous settlement offer that would have returned their deposit.

The court found the applicants' approach to the litigation patently unreasonable and awarded costs to the respondents.

After scrutinizing the respondents' bill of costs for potential overlap, the court fixed costs payable by the applicants at $27,500 inclusive of disbursements.

Following a successful summary judgment motion by the defendants, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The plaintiff, a corporation represented by a non-lawyer with leave, sought costs of $7,500, which was denied due to a complete lack of success.

The court awarded the defendants $18,480.74 in costs, finding the amount fair and reasonable given the complexity of the issues and the plaintiff's overreaching claims for astronomical damages.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against several police officers and the police services board for false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and breach of his Charter rights following his arrest for causing a disturbance and assaulting a police officer.

The plaintiff had been acquitted of the criminal charges.

The court found that the plaintiff was severely intoxicated, belligerent, and aggressive on the night in question, and that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety, concluding that the arrest and detention were lawful, the investigation was not negligent, and there was no malice or Charter breach.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding him $21,000 for breach of contract and $32,000 in costs, seeking increased damages, punitive damages, and damages for assault.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of damages or refusal to award damages for a technical assault and alleged fraud.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents and set off against the costs previously awarded to the appellant.

The applicant purchaser and respondent vendor entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a property intended for a townhouse development.

The agreement included a vendor take back mortgage with a clause reducing the principal amount if the number of approved units was less than the originally planned 18, subject to a $250,000 floor.

The development application faced opposition and the number of units was reduced.

The court was asked to interpret the mortgage terms.

The court found the reduction clause enforceable and not ambiguous, rejecting the vendor's argument that the entire mortgage amount was due if the original application failed.

The court held that the mortgage principal would be reduced according to the formula, subject to the $250,000 floor.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including caregiver and non-earner benefits, from her insurer.

The insurer terminated caregiver benefits after 104 weeks, prompting the plaintiff to sue for the benefits, as well as damages for bad faith and mental distress.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the claim was statute-barred because it was commenced more than two years after the insurer's clear refusal to pay.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the claim were not statute-barred, the plaintiff failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, largely due to pre-existing conditions and a lack of objective medical evidence.

The claims for bad faith and mental distress were also dismissed as the insurer's conduct was reasonable and there was insufficient evidence of compensable distress.