William N. Fuhgeh

The defendants brought a motion for costs thrown away and security for costs after the plaintiff failed to attend a unilaterally scheduled mediation.

The plaintiff had been deported from Canada and had no assets in Ontario.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel acted disrespectfully by concealing the plaintiff's unavailability for mediation, awarding costs thrown away.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs, finding his evidence of impecuniosity unreliable and his underlying claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of insurance contract almost certain to fail.

The parties separated after a 33-year relationship during which they had three children.

The applicant sought spousal support, child support, damages for unjust enrichment, and a restraining order.

The court found the respondent lacked credibility and imputed his income at $100,000 per year due to non-disclosure and voluntary underemployment.

The court awarded the applicant a $330,000 lump sum for indefinite spousal support, finding it adequately compensated her for her contributions to the joint family venture, thereby dismissing the separate unjust enrichment claim.

A restraining order was also granted against the respondent.

The appellants (Roksana Hajrizi and her parents) appealed the dismissal of their action against the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, a vice-principal, and another student, and sought leave to appeal the costs order.

The original action stemmed from an incident in 2009, leading to claims of misfeasance, intentional infliction of mental suffering, negligence, defamation, and conspiracy.

The trial judge dismissed the claims, finding Ms. Hajrizi's testimony not credible, and awarded substantial indemnity costs against the parents, with Ms. Hajrizi liable for a portion.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings, including credibility, and upheld the dismissal of the action.

Leave to appeal costs was denied, as the trial judge's reasoning for awarding costs against the parents and the quantum were deemed reasonable and proportional.

The plaintiff brought a motion regarding refusals and undertakings arising from a discovery in an action concerning the cancellation of an automobile insurance policy and alleged bad faith.

The court addressed specific refusals, largely denying the plaintiff's requests for further production or answers, but ordered some undertakings to be completed.

The court also addressed costs for an abandoned summary judgment motion by the defendant, awarding the plaintiff modest costs for that, and fixed costs for the current motion.

This is a costs endorsement following an 18-day jury trial that concluded as a judge-alone trial, where liability was resolved in favour of the defendants.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the plaintiffs' unfounded accusations of malice, dishonesty, and misfeasance, as well as counsel's prolix and repetitive trial conduct.

The plaintiffs argued for partial indemnity, alleging excessive lawyering, spoliation, and impecuniosity.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the school board defendants, finding the plaintiffs' conduct warranted it, but reduced certain disbursements and capped the primary plaintiff's liability at $100,000.

The court affirmed that impecuniosity is generally not a sufficient reason to displace the rule that costs follow the event, especially for unmeritorious claims.

The plaintiffs sued the school board, a vice-principal, and a former student for events that occurred in September 2009, alleging false imprisonment, malicious intent, and negligence after the plaintiff student was arrested for uttering threats.

The court found the defendants' evidence credible, rejected the plaintiffs' allegations of a grudge or malicious intent by the vice-principal, and concluded the confinement of the student during the investigation was justified.

The action was dismissed.

The client abandoned her application for an assessment of her former solicitor's accounts the day before the scheduled hearing.

The assessment officer endorsed the discontinuance without making a costs order.

The solicitor brought a motion for costs of the abandoned application.

The court found it had jurisdiction to award costs under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 38.08(3), treating the motion akin to a motion to vary an order made without notice.

The court awarded the solicitor partial indemnity costs fixed at $1,000, discounting the amount claimed due to proportionality and avoidable preparation time.

The applicants, residents of Senegal, sought to enforce a Senegalese judgment in Ontario.

The respondent moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) due to the applicants' non-residency.

The court found the applicants failed to demonstrate impecuniosity with robust particularity, particularly regarding their ability to borrow against an owned house.

The court also found the merits of the application, specifically regarding notice to the respondent in the Senegal action, were not strong enough to defeat the motion for security for costs.

The applicants' offer of a security interest in a Senegalese house was deemed insufficient.

The motion for security for costs was granted, and the applicants were ordered to post $23,272.20 within 90 days.

The plaintiff proceeded with an undefended claim against the defendant.

The court found that the defendant breached its contract with the plaintiff, was unjustly enriched, and improperly used the plaintiff's trade name, Kerkuk Café.

The plaintiff was directed to provide a draft judgment summarizing the losses and damages.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $25,000.

The appellant husband appealed an order enforcing a separation agreement and child support arrears.

He argued the motion judge erred in refusing an adjournment and in enforcing the agreement due to an alleged power imbalance, emotional stress, and ambiguity regarding child support for his stepchildren.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the refusal to adjourn given the appellant's history of non-compliance.

The court also held that ambiguity in the support clause and the appellant's emotional stress were not grounds to invalidate the entire agreement.

This is a costs decision following a trial in a parenting and child support case.

The respondent (mother) was granted custody of the two children and the applicant (father) was granted graduated access.

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

The mother sought full recovery of costs at $8,358.50, while the father sought no costs order.

The court found the mother was the successful party on custody and access issues, with divided success on child support.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $4,200, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable in monthly instalments of $200 commencing October 1, 2014.

The respondent father sought joint custody of two children (ages 16 and 10) with primary residence to remain with the applicant mother, along with specified access including extended summer visits in North Carolina.

The mother sought sole custody, child support based on imputed income of $60,000, and a non-removal order.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer recommended sole custody to the mother with gradual access in Canada only.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding the parents' communication was severely compromised and joint custody was not in the children's best interests.

Access was ordered on a gradual basis within the Greater Toronto Area, with a non-removal order.

Child support was imputed at $27,600 per annum ($400/month) effective August 1, 2014, increasing to $35,000 per annum ($508/month) effective January 1, 2015.

The defendant in a solicitor's negligence action brought a motion for the production of documents over which the plaintiff claimed settlement and solicitor-client privilege.

The court reviewed the documents and found that privilege had been waived or exceptions applied, as the documents related to the implementation of a settlement and the plaintiff's access to independent legal advice, which were central to the defence.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce the documents, allowing only one redaction for specific legal advice.

The court addressed competing procedural issues arising from a scheduled motion involving requests to compel mediation, amend pleadings, obtain discovery-related relief, and compel production of allegedly privileged documents.

The parties consented to adjourn the motion but disputed the timetable for intervening procedural steps.

The court imposed a revised schedule governing delivery of an expert report, responding affidavit, cross-examinations, and factums, culminating in a new motion date.

The court also struck portions of the plaintiff’s affidavit that contained counsel’s opinions rather than admissible facts and refused to admit a responding affidavit containing inflammatory allegations.

Costs of the attendance were reserved to the hearing of the motions.

The accused was charged with careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act and failing to remain at the scene of an accident under section 200(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The incident occurred on March 9, 2011, on Highway 416 near the Highway 401 connection during poor winter driving conditions.

The accused's black SUV with diplomatic plates collided with a red Ford Mustang while attempting to pass.

Multiple independent witnesses testified that the accused drove too closely to the Mustang, flashed his lights to signal the driver to move lanes, and struck the vehicle while it was changing lanes.

The Mustang spun out of control and hit a guard rail.

The accused applied brakes briefly after the collision but then accelerated away at speeds up to 130 kph.

The court found the accused guilty of both charges, determining that his conduct constituted a sufficient departure from the standard of a prudent and reasonable driver and that he must have been aware of the collision given the circumstances.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for breach of a contract to supply and install a custom granite countertop.

The trial judge found the corporate and personal defendants jointly liable because the corporate name was not disclosed and the personal defendant accepted payment in her own name.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the liability finding, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact regarding the defective installation and the respondent's duty to mitigate.