Adriana Doyle

The self-represented appellant failed to appear at the hearing of the appeal.

After waiting for half an hour, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, without costs.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on two counts of mischief arising from his participation in the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa.

The respondent cross-appealed his conviction for obstructing a peace officer and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the Crown's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider the respondent's actions—including his refusal to leave the area and his encouragement of others—as aiding and abetting the ongoing mischief.

The court dismissed the respondent's appeal, holding that the police were acting in the lawful execution of their duties and that the fresh evidence would not have affected the result.

Convictions for mischief were entered and the matter was remitted for sentencing.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) brought a motion to pay the net proceeds from a power of sale of a property into court.

The defendant, Guy Lafond, and his former partner, Sherri Van de Hoef, along with the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), claimed entitlement to these funds, primarily for child support arrears.

The court determined the amounts owed to each party and established the priority of claims, with FRO and Ms. Van de Hoef's claims (including costs) taking precedence over RBC's remaining claim.

Due to Mr. Lafond's conduct in disputing the claims and causing adjournments without taking suggested steps, he was ordered to pay the costs of the other parties.

The funds in court were insufficient to fully satisfy all claims, leaving Mr. Lafond personally liable for the deficiency owed to RBC.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to adduce the video recorded police statement of a deceased witness in a second-degree murder trial.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the statement lacked threshold reliability and could not be cross-examined.

The court found the statement met the test for procedural reliability under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, noting adequate substitutes for cross-examination such as hallway video footage and the solemnity of the interview.

The application was granted and the statement was ruled admissible.

This decision addresses a costs endorsement following a successful summary judgment motion by the defendants, which dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for anticipatory breach of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The court awarded costs of $50,000 to the defendants, including a previous $4,000 award.

The court considered factors such as the outcome, complexity, parties' conduct, and proportionality, reducing the defendants' requested amount due to duplication of effort and the plaintiff's partial success in adding a party, though this success was ultimately deemed a "pyrrhic victory" given the dismissal of the main action.

Following an order removing the respondent as estate trustee and appointing the applicant in his place, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $9,745 on a full indemnity basis payable by the respondent personally, citing his unreasonable conduct and failure to provide information.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably and breached his fiduciary duties.

Costs were fixed at $9,745 on a full indemnity basis, with half payable by the estate and half payable by the respondent personally.

The self-represented plaintiff, a former student, brought a motion seeking mandatory injunctions requiring the defendant College to change its policies, impose sanctions, and reopen her student portal account.

The court dismissed the requests for injunctive relief and sanctions because an injunction was not pleaded in the statement of claim and the sanctions lacked legal basis.

The court ordered the College to provide copies of the plaintiff's portal documents instead of reopening the account.

The College's cross-motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavits containing opinions and arguments was granted.

The applicant sought to remove her brother as the estate trustee of their mother's estate.

The respondent had failed to provide meaningful information about the estate administration, left the estate's primary asset (a house) uninsured, and only disclosed on the eve of the hearing that he was collecting rent from a tenant in the house.

The court found a consistent pattern of non-disclosure and past misconduct that was likely to continue.

The court ordered the respondent's removal as estate trustee, appointed the applicant in his place, and ordered the respondent to pass his accounts.

The defendant lawyer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims of professional negligence and breach of trust arising from an unregistered mortgage.

The plaintiff alleged that it delivered a bank draft to the defendant in trust and that the defendant undertook to register a second mortgage on its behalf.

The defendant denied being retained by the plaintiff or making such an undertaking.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial due to conflicting evidence, credibility issues, and the risk of inconsistent findings with two other related actions.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, arguing that the plaintiff (Stayside Corporation Inc.) lacked standing under the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and that the APS was terminated due to the purchaser's (6773711 Canada Inc.) anticipatory breach.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing that a trial was necessary due to factual and credibility issues, and sought to add 6773711 Canada Inc. as a party.

The court granted the order to add 6773711 Canada Inc. as a party, finding special circumstances existed despite the expiry of the limitation period.

However, the court ultimately granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim, concluding that 6773711 Canada Inc.'s prolonged and consistent delays in obtaining the necessary severance amounted to an anticipatory breach of a fundamental term of the APS, justifying its termination.

The court also found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding specific performance, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate readiness, willingness, and ability to close, or that the property was unique.

The applicant father and respondent mother, both with military backgrounds, shared parenting of their two children in Chalk River.

The mother, a warrant officer, was posted to Kingston and sought to relocate the children with her.

The father opposed the relocation, seeking primary residence in Chalk River.

The court applied the relocation framework under the Children's Law Reform Act and found that moving the children to Kingston was not in their best interests, given their strong ties to their school, community, and father in Chalk River.

The court ordered that the children's primary residence remain with the father, with the mother having generous parenting time.

This costs endorsement followed a summary judgment motion where portable school classrooms were found to be "improvements" under the Construction Act.

OnPoint Group Ltd., the successful party on the main issue, sought full indemnity costs, while intervening parties also sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded OnPoint Group Ltd. $35,000 and the intervenors $9,500, both on a partial indemnity basis.

The decision considered factors such as mixed success, complexity, and the novelty of the issue, and addressed the impact of bilingual proceedings on costs.

The applicant, a former director and minority shareholder, brought a motion seeking an order for the respondent corporation BCE Realty Ltd. to produce an audited financial statement for 2022, alleging financial impropriety and oppression.

The court found the applicant had standing as a former director under the Ontario Business Corporations Act's oppression remedy provisions, despite not being a direct shareholder.

The court granted the order for the audited financial statement but required the applicant to pay the cost in advance, with the right to seek reimbursement at the end of the litigation.

The Corporation of the Town of Renfrew sought costs after successfully obtaining declarations of ownership, injunctive relief against trespassing, and an order for the removal of encroachments and a non-compliant scaffolding.

The respondents, who were self-represented, opposed the costs request and sought their own costs.

The court awarded the applicant $8,500 in partial indemnity costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding that the respondents' conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The defendant Conseil des Écoles Catholiques du Centre Est (CECCE) brought a summary judgment motion to determine if portable school classrooms built by the plaintiff OnPoint Group Ltd. are "improvements" under the Construction Act, thereby engaging lien provisions, and to dismiss OnPoint's unjust enrichment claim.

The court found the portables are "improvements" and lienable due to their on-site completion, known final destination, CECCE's holdback practices, and enhancement of the school's utility.

However, the unjust enrichment claim was dismissed as CECCE was not unjustly enriched and a juristic reason (contract with general contractor) existed.

The Corporation of the Town of Renfrew brought a motion seeking declarations of ownership over two properties (200 Stewart Street and the Ready Street road allowance), an injunction against the respondents for trespassing, an order for the removal of items and restoration of the properties, and an order for the removal of scaffolding from the respondents' property due to a by-law violation.

The respondents disputed ownership, claiming a by-law granted them rights, and raised various unrelated grievances.

The court found Renfrew to be the titled owner, confirmed the respondents were trespassing, and granted the requested declarations and injunctions, including the removal of items and scaffolding.

The respondents' arguments regarding adverse possession and by-law interpretation were rejected.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day focused hearing where the applicant was entirely successful in setting aside Quebec matrimonial instruments.

The applicant sought costs of over $400,000, while the respondent proposed approximately $184,000.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, awarded the applicant $200,000 in fees and $65,106.73 in disbursements.

The court noted that neither party's offer to settle contained a true element of compromise, as the underlying issue was binary, and found some of the applicant's claimed hours for general research and costs submissions to be excessive and disproportionate, despite the high stakes and complexity of proving foreign law.

The defendants moved for summary judgment against the plaintiff, seeking the return of a service dog, Briggs, arguing there was no genuine issue for trial as the plaintiff was not the dog's owner.

The plaintiff opposed, citing incomplete discovery and insufficient evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a fair and just adjudication required a trial due to credibility issues and a deficient record, especially given the constraints of simplified procedure rules which limit pre-trial proceedings like cross-examinations.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for financial disclosure.

The applicant, Barbara Cohen, sought extensive financial disclosure from the Estate of Sidney Cohen and other parties, which the court found to be an attempt to circumvent a prior bifurcation order by Justice Audet.

The court dismissed the disclosure motion and subsequently awarded costs to the successful respondents and non-parties, including the Estate, Susan Charendoff, Brian Cohen, and several corporate non-parties.

The decision addresses the principles of costs, including partial indemnification, encouraging settlement, discouraging inappropriate behavior, and ensuring justice, while considering the reasonableness and proportionality of the requested amounts.

The court held a voir dire to determine the testimonial capacity of the applicant, Barbara Cohen, who suffers from mild dementia.

The respondents argued she had capacity, while her counsel argued she lacked it.

Based on expert reports from two geriatric specialists (Dr. Joel Sadavoy and Dr. Richard Shulman) and the court's own questioning of Barbara, the court found that the applicant lacked the capacity to testify due to inconsistent memory, difficulty communicating complex ideas, and potential for increased anxiety under cross-examination.

The court ruled that her previous questioning transcripts would be filed instead of compelling her live testimony.