( ii) finding that the appellants breached the agreement;
( iii) finding that the agreement was not varied by further
agreements made in March and November 2013;
( iv) finding that one of the appellants, Swati Damle, impermis-
sibly dissipated her assets; and
( v) awarding judgment to a non-party.
[ 4] The agreement between the parties is not a standard
form contract. Accordingly, absent an extricable legal error, the
motion judge’s findings are entitled to deference from this court.
The palpable and overriding error standard of review applies:
Heritage Capital Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co.,  1 S.C.R.
306,  S.C.J. No. 19, 2016 SCC 19, at paras. 21-24.
[ 5] The motion judge conducted a very thorough review of the
evidence regarding the contractual arrangements entered into
by the parties. With respect to issues ( i), ( ii) and ( iii), we see no
legal error or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge’s
analysis. Specifically, in reaching the conclusion that the parties
were not engaged in a joint venture, the motion judge found that
there was no common undertaking, no mutual control and no
expectation to share in profits. These findings were available on
the record. The appellants’ argument that there had been a
breach of the agreement is premised on the incorrect notion that
the parties were engaged in a joint venture. Further, the motion
judge’s finding that there had not been variations to the agreement in March and November 2013 was also available to him on
the record and the appellants have not identified any error he
made in making that finding.
[ 6] With respect to the finding that Ms. Damle impermissibly
dissipated her assets, the evidence establishes that she sold and
encumbered properties during the course of these proceedings.
In any event, in determining the issues among the parties the
motion judge did not rely upon that finding other than as one
ground among many in support of his costs award. For the reasons discussed below, we decline to grant leave to appeal costs.
[ 7] We are of the view that the motion judge erred in making
his damage award in favour of all of the respondents, as only the
corporate litigants were parties to the agreement. Accordingly,
we order the judgment be varied to remove the handwritten
amendment in para. 3.
[ 8] While we would not interfere with the costs award made by
the motion judge, we would express a cautionary note on this
issue. In this case, the motion judge awarded costs on a full