Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of Sheridan Retail’s action under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP law, but reduced the motion costs award from $156,394.54 to $75,000.
Seal's application for security for costs was dismissed because he failed to demonstrate Mansfield would be unable to pay his costs on appeal and Mansfield showed the appeal was reasonably or fairly apparent to have merit; additionally, the court noted that intervenor costs are not routinely awarded and must be justified, so ordering security was not warranted.
Source excerpt
Because the parties had agreed the quantum of damages was $125,000, the court treated that as the 'amount involved' under Tariff A, applied Scale 2 ($12,250) plus $2,000 per trial day ($4,000) for a pre-multiplier total of $16,250, and increased the tariff by 50% under Rule 10.09 because the defendants' formal offer dated July 15, 2024 was made after setting down but before the Finish Date, yielding an award of $23,125; $750 in reasonable disbursements were also awarded; the plaintiff's hardship claim was rejected for lack of evidence and the defendants' formal offers qualified under Rule 10.…
Source excerpt
Registrar found the hours billed (629 by lawyer, 78.2 by staff) were excessive and not reflected in the work product; substantial portion of staff time was administrative or training and should not be billed; lawyer failed to demonstrate required skill and produced pleadings and submissions lacking legal analysis despite extensive research charges; solicitor's disciplinary history and trust-account restrictions were relevant; applied s.71(4) factors and reduced allowed fees to $60,000 inclusive of disbursements, taxes, interest and amounts already paid; because reduction exceeded 1/6th, solic…
Source excerpt
The court held that while the amendments did not create a new cause of action, they introduced a new head of damages (physical pain and health effects) that raises causation and mitigation issues necessitating review of extensive medical records and re-discovery; accordingly a conditional costs award approximating the Defendant's reasonable additional expenses ($20,000) was appropriate unless the Plaintiff discontinues those damage claims within the prescribed timeframe. Separately, the Plaintiff's voluminous, repetitive and often inadmissible affidavit material, inadequate preparation and re…
Source excerpt
The court held that costs of the s.33 application are awarded to Mr. Amies on a Scale B basis and clarified that the costs award is against Ms. Cory Leigh Goddard personally (in her capacity as an opposing descendant/beneficiary) and not against Mr. Robin Goddard or the Estate; payment timing is governed by R.14-1(13) and may be deferred by written agreement, and the judge declined to revisit the substantive merits absent proper appeal.
Source excerpt
The October 17, 2024 settlement offer for $500,000, which expressly articulated the successful theory that certain trust distributions were unpaid, was a reasonable offer that should have been accepted; accordingly the defendant Lyle must pay the plaintiff's costs from October 17, 2024, assessed as party-and-party costs at Scale B. The earlier February 2, 2024 offer was not sanctionable because it lacked substantive rationale and was not unreasonably rejected.
Source excerpt
Judge divided the interlocutory applications into two groups (support/disclosure and parenting/conduct). Mother was substantially successful on support and disclosure and is awarded costs in any event of the cause to be paid at the conclusion of the family case, assessed on more than ordinary difficulty for 1.5 days; father was successful on key elements of the parenting/conduct applications but under Rule 16‑1(9) remains entitled to those application costs only in the cause (i.e. at trial if awarded), assessed on ordinary difficulty for 2 days; additionally mother is awarded $500 for the pas…
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding errors in the summary trial judge's factual findings that the solicitor obtained instructions to settle, that the client understood and consented to the mutual release, and that the solicitor's advice and conduct met the standard of a reasonably competent lawyer; therefore there was no basis to find solicitor's negligence.
Source excerpt
By the end of October 2025 the aggregate of discovery and expert evidence exposed fundamental gaps in the plaintiff's case (notably absence of evidence to establish the applicable standard of care and causation) such that the March 6, 2023 walk-away offer ought reasonably to have been accepted by that time; therefore defendants are entitled to Scale B costs to October 31, 2025 and double costs thereafter, plus costs of the application.
Source excerpt
Explore more
