William S. O’Hara

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing its professional negligence action for delay.

The action had been case managed and was proceeding in tandem with a related shareholder action.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that the plaintiff provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, demonstrated inadvertence in missing the deadline, moved promptly to address the dismissal, and that the defendants would not suffer significant prejudice.

The motion was granted and the registrar's order was set aside.

Following the dismissal of a civil action for delay, a defendant sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the plaintiffs had made serious allegations of professional misconduct against a lawyer without evidentiary foundation.

The court reviewed the governing principles for fixing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While allegations of misconduct against professionals can justify elevated costs where they are reckless or unfounded, the court found insufficient evidence to conclude the plaintiffs’ claims met the threshold of reprehensible conduct.

The defendant was therefore entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale only.

The amount of costs was ordered to be determined by an Assessment Officer based on the hourly rates set out in the defendant’s Costs Outline.

Following an earlier ruling declaring the respondent a vexatious litigant, multiple applicants sought costs of the proceeding.

The court found that the respondent’s conduct throughout the litigation, including unsupported allegations of misconduct, disregard of procedural orders, and repeated technical objections, justified an award of substantial indemnity costs.

The court reviewed each applicant’s bill of costs and assessed overall reasonableness, reducing or excluding amounts relating to deferred motions for security for costs and instances of over‑lawyering.

Several cost awards were fixed globally rather than assessed strictly by docketed hours.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to multiple applicant groups in varying amounts.

The applicants, comprising 27 parties adverse to the respondent in 14 different actions, brought an application to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent had a history of commencing multiple actions against his former lawyers and others, alleging widespread conspiracies and fraud after losing previous litigation.

The court found that the respondent persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable grounds, sought to relitigate previously decided issues, and failed to pay outstanding costs orders.

The court granted the application, prohibiting the respondent and his corporations from instituting or continuing any proceedings without prior leave of the court.