Alexander Verrilli

This costs decision follows the court's substantive orders of September 23, 2025 (2025 ONSC 4703).

The applicants sought $65,000 in costs based on a legal bill of $115,110.

Steven Jackson and 2131376 Ontario Ltd. sought $58,407 based on a legal bill of $93,185.

Peter Jackson claimed $21,719 based on a legal bill of $33,014.

The court found that the applicants' allegations of domestic abuse and misappropriation, which failed to be proven, escalated the litigation.

The court awarded costs to Peter Jackson in the amount of $21,719.44 on a partial indemnity scale, payable by the applicants.

No costs were awarded as between the applicants and Steven Jackson and 2131376 Ontario Ltd.

The plaintiff sought to vary a court-approved timetable to compel affidavits of documents and examinations for discovery prior to the defendant's summary judgment motion.

The defendant opposed, arguing the motion should proceed without delay and that the case was not complex.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that allegations of fraud and forgery involve credibility issues difficult to resolve on a paper record alone.

The court ordered a proportionate discovery process including exchange of affidavits of documents and cross-examinations on the motion, with the summary judgment motion to be heard in fall 2026.

The defendants brought a motion to amend their pleadings by delivering a Fresh As Amended Statement of Defence and Crossclaim.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the defendants had made admissions in the proceeding and that Rule 51.05 governing withdrawal of admissions applied.

The court found that while the defendants had made certain admissions regarding the promissory note and advances of funds, the proposed amendments did not seek to resile from those core admissions.

Rather, the defendants sought to plead alternative circumstances regarding the nature of the transaction, including rectification, set-off, and damages claims.

The court granted leave to amend, except for the non est factum defence, which was precluded by the defendants' prior admissions regarding the promissory note.

This case arose from a family dispute following a corporate restructuring in September 2020 involving two patio furnishings businesses operated by spouses Kimberley and Steven Jackson.

The applicants sought to invalidate the transfer of nine shares in Distinctly Patio Inc. (DPI) to their son Peter, claiming the transfer was funded through an unauthorized bonus paid by DPI to Peter.

The applicants also sought an accounting for profits allegedly earned by 2131376 Ontario Ltd. (operating as Think Patio) in violation of a non-competition clause in the DPI shareholders' agreement.

The respondents relied on a two-year limitation period defense.

The court found that while Peter became a shareholder despite not signing the shareholders' agreement, the applicants' claims based on the bonus and share transfer were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the constructive trust claim on the merits, finding insufficient evidence of misappropriation.

However, the court found that Steven and 2131376 likely breached the non-competition clause and ordered an accounting reference.

The court also granted Peter's counterapplication for oppression remedies, ordering DPI to redeem his shares for $17,167.42.

The court considered whether an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) for a residential property between Kevin Curridor and Millstone Homes Inc. was valid and enforceable, and determined the appropriate quantum of damages.

The APS was found to be valid and enforceable under the "indoor management rule" of the Business Corporations Act, as there was no evidence that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of any internal irregularities or fraud.

The court awarded damages based on the difference between the agreed purchase price and the market value, with certain deductions.

Following a summary judgment motion where the plaintiffs were successful against the personal defendants but unsuccessful against the corporate defendants, the plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs based on a Rule 49 offer.

The defendants argued for a set-off of costs due to the mixed success.

The court found that the claims against all defendants arose from the same debt and circumstances, making it just for the unsuccessful personal defendants to pay all the plaintiffs' costs.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs of $30,370.49, allowing the personal defendants to claim a portion from the corporate defendants at the final disposition.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to recover funds advanced to the defendants for unperformed work on a farm construction project.

The plaintiffs claimed unjust enrichment and breach of a settlement agreement reached under the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

The court found a genuine issue requiring trial regarding the limitation period for the unjust enrichment claim.

However, the court granted summary judgment enforcing the settlement agreement, finding the personal defendants had personally guaranteed the corporate debt and were bound by the clear terms of the mediated settlement.

This case is an appeal under s. 25 of the Building Code Act, 1992, concerning five compliance orders issued by the chief building official.

The appellant challenged two of the orders, arguing that the official erred in finding a "dwelling" on the premises.

The court affirmed all orders, holding that the official was only required to determine if the structures were "buildings" under the Act, not necessarily "dwellings," and found no reversible error.

The decision also clarified the applicable standard of review for statutory appeals and the court's limited jurisdiction regarding tort claims.

The plaintiff sought the continuation of an interim Mareva injunction against multiple defendants, alleging fraud and dissipation of assets.

The court found an overwhelming case of fraud by Stephen Lee Heimbecker and Nestig Inc., and a prima facie case of joint participation, willful blindness, or assistance in the fraud by Joanna Marie Heimbecker and Keystone Capital Inc. The court determined that irreparable harm would occur without the injunction and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff.

The court granted the interlocutory Mareva Order, including the release of certain frozen funds to the plaintiff.

The court rejected Joanna Marie Heimbecker's requests to open a new bank account for future employment income and to sell jewellery for legal expenses and tuition, citing a lack of complete and accurate financial disclosure and serious inconsistencies.

The court also declined to reduce the living expense exemption for the Heimbeckers at this stage but left open the possibility if disclosure issues persist.

The plaintiff, a restaurant tenant, sued the landlord and its director for wrongful lease termination and damages.

The landlord counterclaimed for accelerated rent.

The court found the landlord unlawfully terminated the lease, awarding the tenant damages for lost business, deposit reimbursement, and duct cleaning costs.

The counterclaim was dismissed, and punitive damages and personal liability for the director were denied.