Asher G. Honickman

This costs decision addresses the allocation of costs for a distribution motion concerning competing claims over preserved funds in a complex fraud and investment scheme case.

The Trial Parties, who succeeded at trial on fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment claims, sought to recover their judgment from preserved funds.

The Settling Parties, who had reached settlement agreements with the defendants before trial, sought equitable liens and constructive trusts over the same preserved funds.

The court awarded costs to the Trial Parties against the Settling Parties, finding that the Settling Parties had deliberately delayed enforcement of their settlements and improperly sought to benefit from the Trial Parties' litigation efforts without bearing the associated costs and burdens.

The appellant, Emad Beshay, appealed an order dismissing his action for delay under Rule 48.14(7)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, commenced in December 2016 for breach of contract and misrepresentation related to a business purchase, had seen no significant progress for over five years.

The motion judge rejected the appellant's explanations for delay, including family deaths, mental illness, and financial problems, finding them unsupported by cogent evidence and contradicted by his business activities.

The motion judge also found the respondents would suffer prejudice due to fading memories of witnesses and lost banking records.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's discretionary decision and finding no palpable and overriding errors in her assessment of the evidence or application of the two-part test for delay dismissal (acceptable explanation and no non-compensable prejudice).

The applicant, a taxpayer in Toronto, sought to quash a City of Toronto by-law that provided a one-time contribution of up to $100,000 to legal challenges against Quebec's Bill 21.

The applicant argued the by-law was ultra vires as it lacked a valid municipal purpose.

The court found that the by-law, which funded litigation against a Quebec law with no extra-territorial effect on Torontonians, did not serve a valid municipal purpose related to the social or economic well-being of the City.

Citing precedents like Shell Canada and Eng v. Toronto, the court concluded that giving 'voice to values' was not a valid exercise of municipal power when the issue did not directly affect the local community.

The court granted the order, quashing the funding portion of the by-law and awarding costs to the applicant.

The plaintiff moved for an order to extend the time to set the matter down for trial, which the defendants opposed, seeking dismissal for delay.

The action, arising from a business purchase, had been dormant for over five years.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and the action, finding the plaintiff's explanations for delay (family deaths, wife's mental health, own mental health, financial strain, COVID-19 impact) unacceptable due to lack of cogent evidence and the plaintiff's apparent financial capacity and other business activities.

The court also found actual prejudice to the defendants due to faded witness memories and unavailable banking records, emphasizing the importance of respecting procedural timelines for timely access to justice.

The applicant sought an urgent order to be certified as a candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada's National Council election after the returning officer refused her candidacy due to old social media posts.

The court found it had jurisdiction to intervene in the rules of an unincorporated political association where a significant contractual right was breached.

It held that the returning officer acted beyond his authority by imposing additional criteria not found in the party's rules, which explicitly stated that eligible candidates "shall be certified." The court granted the application, ordering the applicant's name to be added to the ballot.

The plaintiff, a unionized employee, brought a tort action against her employer (Toronto Parking Authority) and a co-worker (Vito Ditta) for damages arising from alleged workplace sexual assault and harassment.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction as the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under section 48 of the Labour Relations Act.

The court found that the essential character of the dispute concerned workplace violence and harassment, which was covered by the collective agreement and the employer's workplace policies.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's arguments regarding a Charter section 15 violation and a remedial gap, concluding that the dispute was exclusively arbitrable.

The applicant, Ryan Alford, challenged the Law Society of Upper Canada's requirement for licensees to adopt a Statement of Principles promoting equality, diversity, and inclusion.

The Law Society brought a motion challenging the Superior Court's jurisdiction, arguing the matter should be heard as an application for judicial review in the Divisional Court.

The court found that the Law Society's decision was an exercise of statutory power, falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Divisional Court for judicial review.

The motion to transfer the application to the Divisional Court was granted.

The defendants brought a motion for a mistrial during trial, alleging prejudice from a newspaper article and improper conduct by plaintiffs' counsel.

The court dismissed the mistrial motion, finding no real danger of prejudice as no jurors had read the article, and that appropriate judicial instructions could cure any potential harm.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of the plaintiffs' expert evidence regarding dependency loss, specifically allowing a scenario based on career advancement despite some foundational facts not being fully proven, emphasizing that the weight, not admissibility, of expert testimony is affected by unproven facts.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a workplace fall, arguing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and no evidence of negligence or breach of statutory duty under the Occupiers Liability Act.

The plaintiff, an experienced contractor hired to replace a water tank, fell from structural studs above a suspended ceiling while accessing a water valve located more than ten feet above the floor.

The defendants argued the plaintiff chose an unsafe method of access and could not identify the cause of his fall.

The court held that genuine issues remained for trial, including whether the defendants directed the plaintiff to access the valve in that manner and whether the condition of the premises breached the statutory duty under the Occupiers Liability Act.

Credibility conflicts between the plaintiff and the defendants’ agent and unresolved factual issues made summary judgment inappropriate.

Multiple motions arose from contentious guardianship litigation concerning decision-making for an incapable elderly individual under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The applicants, former co‑guardians of the person, sought reimbursement of substantial legal costs from the guardianship estate for litigation undertaken during disputes over medical treatment and end‑of‑life care.

The respondents opposed the claim and sought their own costs arising from the applicants’ repeated urgent motions and alleged interference with medical decision‑making.

The court found the applicants’ advocacy excessive, confrontational, and largely unsuccessful, providing minimal benefit to the incapable person.

The applicants’ request for indemnification from the estate was dismissed, and they were ordered to indemnify the respondents for significant costs relating to the contentious proceedings.