Amanda M. Estabrooks

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of Patricia Graham's application to invalidate a will.

Katherine Blais, the successful respondent, sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court fixed Ms. Blais's costs at $22,000, reducing the requested amount of $30,700.

The decision considered Ms. Graham's conduct in unnecessarily lengthening the proceeding, the reasonableness of hourly rates for counsel of differing experience, and the exclusion of fees for inadequately explained non-lawyer timekeepers.

The applicant, Patricia Graham, sought to invalidate her late sister Sheila Mary McNally's 2020 will on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and suspicious circumstances.

The respondent, Katherine Blais (estate trustee and beneficiary), moved to dismiss the application, arguing the applicant failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold.

The court found that the applicant's evidence was largely speculation and suspicion, failing to meet the required threshold to call the will's validity into question.

The motion to dismiss was granted, and the application was dismissed in its entirety, with costs awarded against the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to set aside a marriage contract following her husband's death, alleging she did not understand the contract and that he failed to disclose significant assets.

The respondent estate opposed the motion, arguing that the applicant's credibility was a genuine issue for trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant's uncorroborated evidence contradicted the written contract and certificates of independent legal advice, and that a full trial was necessary to assess her credibility and the validity of the contract.

The plaintiff, Drew Casterton, sued the defendant, Gordon MacIsaac, for injuries sustained during a recreational hockey game collision.

The court found MacIsaac liable for intentionally or recklessly causing a blindside hit to Casterton's face, which was deemed outside the bounds of fair play.

The defence of contributory negligence, based on Casterton's choice of a half-visor and alleged cannabis impairment, was rejected.

Casterton was awarded general damages, past income loss, and future income loss, totaling $702,551, but punitive damages were not granted.

The plaintiff sued for damages totalling approximately two million dollars, alleging negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and defamation against the Attorney General of Canada and a contract manager, Paul Piché.

The claims arose from the plaintiff's participation in a 2007 Request for Standing Offer (RFSO) where his bid was largely prepared by a competitor, leading to a bid-rigging investigation and charges (later stayed).

The plaintiff argued that negligent answers to RFSO questions induced his actions and that Piché's statements to the Competition Bureau were defamatory.

The court dismissed all claims, finding no duty of care owed by the defendants to provide legal advice on the Competition Act, no negligent misrepresentation or breach of standard of care, and no malice in the defamation claim.

The court also determined that the plaintiff's reliance was unreasonable and that his alleged damages were unproven and too remote, largely attributable to his own contributory negligence.

The applicants brought a motion for approval of a settlement reached on behalf of a minor who was injured in a dog attack.

The proposed settlement included damages, interest, and costs totaling $65,135.82.

The court adjourned the motion, finding that additional evidence was required regarding the minor's psychological injuries, future surgical needs, apportionment of travel expenses, liability compromise, and the proposed investment of the settlement funds outside of the Accountant for the Superior Court of Justice.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a settlement under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, involving minor plaintiffs.

The proposed settlement of $250,000.00 included an allocation of $1,000.00 for each minor.

The court declined to approve the settlement due to concerns about a potential conflict of interest between the litigation guardian and the minor plaintiffs, the absence of proposed minutes of settlement, and the proposal to pay funds into RESPs instead of into court as required by Rule 7.09(1).

The court requested additional evidence to assess whether the settlement was in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs.