Dispute related to applicant’s proposed development project in which respondent AC became involved. Applicant brought oppression application and action for breach of contract. Oppression remedy was granted, but general damages were not awarded. Applicant only sought remedy for oppression, though breach of contractual obligations was also established. Parties made submissions on costs, each claiming to have been successful party. It was ordered that parties bear their own costs. Applicant failed to prove losses related to AC’s failure to fund development project. AC did not have cross-application, but sought relief in form of payout of his mortgage including interest, issue which was not finally determined. Both parties’ versions of events were rejected, and both were found to be unsatisfactory witnesses. Neither party succeeded in advancing their theory of case, and neither could claim substantial success. Litigation would accomplish nothing more than separation of parties’ interests. Neither side bore blame to greater extent than other for fact that it took significant expense of these proceedings to achieve parties’ disentanglement.
Bitton v. Checroune (2017), 2017 CarswellOnt 18709, 2017 ONSC 6731, J.T. Akbarali J. (Ont. S.C.J.); additional reasons (2017), 2017 CarswellOnt 6694, 2017 ONSC 2434, J.T. Akbarali J. (Ont. S.C.J.). (Ont. S.C.J.); additional reasons (2017), 2017 CarswellOnt 15276, 2017 ONSC 5542, J.T. Akbarali J. (Ont. S.C.J.).