In the case of Newbridge Mortgage Inc. v Rouge Park Terraces Non-Profit Development Corporation et al. dated May 1, 2023, the plaintiff, Newbridge Mortgage Inc., had provided financing for a development project in Ontario and had been owed a fee of $350,000 for its services. The financing had been secured by a mortgage on the property. The defendant, Rouge Park Terraces Non-Profit Development Corporation, had been created to develop affordable housing and had been led by Charles Sutherland, who had also been involved in a related consulting deal. Due to the project's failure, the property had had to be sold, and Newbridge had been asked to discharge its mortgage to facilitate the sale. Sutherland had denied liability, asserting that he hadn't misrepresented the commission reduction, had been acting as the CEO of Rouge Park or President of his numbered company, and that Rouge Park hadn't owed Newbridge fees. However, the court had disagreed, stating that these defenses had been insufficient to defend against the summary judgment motion. In conclusion, both Charles Sutherland and Rouge Park had been found liable to Newbridge for $350,000 along with prejudgment interest due to civil fraud. Newbridge had sought costs on both substantial indemnity and partial indemnity scales, while Sutherland had argued for costs on a partial indemnity basis, emphasizing that costs should have been fair and reasonable rather than precisely reflecting actual costs. The court had deemed substantial indemnity costs of $71,616.12 appropriate in this case, given Sutherland's personal liability for civil fraud.