High-Handed Conduct (Tort): Difference between revisions
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==OMJ Mortgage Capital Inc. v. King Square Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3922 (CanLII)<ref name="OMJ"/>== | ==OMJ Mortgage Capital Inc. v. King Square Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3922 (CanLII)<ref name="OMJ"/>== | ||
[4] Substantial indemnity costs may be warranted where a party has engaged in reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct in the proceeding: Davies v. Clarington (Municipality) (2009), 100 O.R. (3d) 66 (C.A.), 2009 ONCA 722, at paras. 28-29. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly stated that substantial indemnity costs are reserved to those rare and exceptional case where a party has engaged in egregious or high-handed conduct warranting an expression of the court’s disapproval. | [4] Substantial indemnity costs may be warranted where a party has engaged in reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct in the proceeding: <b><i>Davies v. Clarington (Municipality) (2009), 100 O.R. (3d) 66 (C.A.), 2009 ONCA 722</b></i><ref name="Davies"/>, at paras. 28-29. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly stated that substantial indemnity costs are reserved to those rare and exceptional case where a party has engaged in egregious or high-handed conduct warranting an expression of the court’s disapproval. | ||
[5] While I found that KSL’s failure to disclose that it obtained further loans from the lender that OMJ had introduced breached the duty of good faith, a finding of bad faith does not necessarily warrant costs on a substantial indemnity basis. There was no egregious, malicious or high-handed conduct, in the proceeding or otherwise, that would warrant an award of substantial indemnity costs before the date of the offer to settle. | [5] While I found that KSL’s failure to disclose that it obtained further loans from the lender that OMJ had introduced breached the duty of good faith, <b><u>a finding of bad faith does not necessarily warrant costs on a substantial indemnity basis. There was no egregious, malicious or high-handed conduct, in the proceeding or otherwise, that would warrant an award of substantial indemnity costs before the date of the offer to settle.</b></u> | ||
[6] OMJ’s costs until its offer to settle are to be determined on a partial indemnity basis. | [6] OMJ’s costs until its offer to settle are to be determined on a partial indemnity basis. | ||
<ref name="OMJ">OMJ Mortgage Capital Inc. v. King Square Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3922 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j8d87>, retrieved on 2020-07-03</ref> | <ref name="OMJ">OMJ Mortgage Capital Inc. v. King Square Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3922 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j8d87>, retrieved on 2020-07-03</ref> | ||
<ref name="Davies">Davies v. Clarington (Municipality) et al., 2009 ONCA 722 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/264cv>, retrieved on 2020-07-03</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 22:36, 3 July 2020
OMJ Mortgage Capital Inc. v. King Square Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3922 (CanLII)[1]
[4] Substantial indemnity costs may be warranted where a party has engaged in reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct in the proceeding: Davies v. Clarington (Municipality) (2009), 100 O.R. (3d) 66 (C.A.), 2009 ONCA 722[2], at paras. 28-29. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly stated that substantial indemnity costs are reserved to those rare and exceptional case where a party has engaged in egregious or high-handed conduct warranting an expression of the court’s disapproval.
[5] While I found that KSL’s failure to disclose that it obtained further loans from the lender that OMJ had introduced breached the duty of good faith, a finding of bad faith does not necessarily warrant costs on a substantial indemnity basis. There was no egregious, malicious or high-handed conduct, in the proceeding or otherwise, that would warrant an award of substantial indemnity costs before the date of the offer to settle.
[6] OMJ’s costs until its offer to settle are to be determined on a partial indemnity basis.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 OMJ Mortgage Capital Inc. v. King Square Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3922 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j8d87>, retrieved on 2020-07-03
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Davies v. Clarington (Municipality) et al., 2009 ONCA 722 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/264cv>, retrieved on 2020-07-03
