Arkadi Bouchelev

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the respondents following their successful motion to set aside an ex parte order.

The ex parte order was set aside due to the applicants' failure to make full and frank disclosure.

The court rejected the applicants' argument to reserve costs to a future motion judge, emphasizing the importance of full disclosure in ex parte applications and finding that the issue of disclosure was distinct from the merits of the underlying dispute.

The moving parties brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order that froze their bank accounts and required them to pay funds into court.

The court found that the responding parties failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts when obtaining the ex parte order, specifically by providing misleading evidence regarding the urgency of the matter and the connection to a related action.

The court set aside the ex parte order, granting leave to bring the motion again on proper notice.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Deputy Mining and Lands Commissioner denying them permission to build a home on their land due to flood control concerns raised by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by presuming a general legislative prohibition on development in floodplains and by elevating safety to a stand-alone head of jurisdiction.

The Court held that the proposed development would have no impact on flood control and directed the approval of the development without conditions.

Following an uncontested family trial, the court addressed equalization of net family property, spousal support, and costs after granting a divorce.

The respondent had repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure orders and his Answer was struck, leaving the applicant’s evidence largely uncontested.

The court drew adverse inferences regarding undisclosed assets and attributed significant cash to the respondent when calculating net family property.

A vesting order transferred the respondent’s interest in the matrimonial home to the applicant to satisfy an equalization payment.

The applicant was also awarded retroactive and ongoing spousal support and substantial costs.

In supplementary reasons addressing costs following earlier reasons under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the applicant mortgage lender sought full indemnity costs based on contractual mortgage provisions.

The court confirmed that while contractual entitlement to full indemnity costs exists, the court retains supervisory authority to ensure the amounts claimed are fair and reasonable.

The applicant’s bill of costs was reduced for inefficiencies, including excessive research time and the use of senior counsel for work that could have been delegated or billed at a lower rate.

Additional reductions were made for excessive preparation time on reply materials.

The court ultimately fixed reasonable full indemnity costs and rejected arguments for further reductions based on partial success or for awarding costs to another resisting respondent.

The plaintiff brought an action arising from an informal arrangement whereby she provided funds to the defendant to invest in Toronto real estate on her behalf.

The defendant used the plaintiff’s funds to acquire a condominium in his own name and retained funds intended for upgrades, while also collecting rental income from the property.

The defendant conceded that the condominium was purchased with the plaintiff’s funds and acknowledged holding upgrade funds belonging to her.

The court declared that the defendant held the property interest in trust for the plaintiff, ordered repayment of $11,782, required an accounting of rental and occupancy payments, and directed the defendant to assign his purchaser’s interest to the plaintiff.

Although the defendant’s conduct displayed several indicia of fraud, the court found no proven intention to deceive or deprive and therefore declined to award punitive damages.

The plaintiff corporation sought continuation of a preservation order restricting the defendant from dealing with equity in a replacement property pending trial.

The underlying action alleged unpaid renovation work and a loan for property taxes, claiming the parties agreed payment would come from the proceeds of sale of a prior property.

The defendant denied any contract and disputed the extent of renovations.

The court found significant credibility conflicts requiring resolution at trial but concluded there was a serious issue to be tried and a sufficient connection between the proceeds of the original property and the equity in the replacement property to justify relief under Rule 45.02.

The preservation order was continued with procedural directions to move the action expeditiously to trial.