Bernadette Dietrich

The Estate Trustees of Allen Berg's estate sought court direction to determine the beneficial ownership of a cottage property.

Legal title was held by Melamel Properties Inc., whose shares were owned by the estate.

Judith Berg, the deceased's widow, claimed the entire beneficial interest or a 50% interest.

The court found that the deceased had created an express trust, holding the property for himself and Judith Berg as equal tenants in common.

The deceased's subsequent attempt to transfer the property solely to Melamel Properties Inc. for his exclusive benefit was deemed ineffective due to misstatements and breach of fiduciary duty, as Judith Berg's beneficial interest could not be unilaterally divested.

The court vested an undivided one-half interest in Judith Berg personally and an undivided one-half interest in the Estate of Allen Berg as tenants in common.

Mohammad Akram, an incapable person with substantial property, had The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company appointed as interim guardian.

Due to persistent family disputes and non-cooperation, the interim guardian moved for its removal, the appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), and approval of its compensation and indemnification for legal fees.

The court determined it lacked authority to appoint the PGT as guardian without the PGT's consent and a formal application, especially since other family members expressed willingness to act.

The court denied the immediate removal of the interim guardian but varied the existing Order Giving Directions to establish a structured timetable for the appointment of a permanent guardian and mandatory mediation.

The court granted the interim guardian permission to pre-take compensation and indemnify itself for legal fees, and appointed the PGT as litigation guardian for the purpose of passing accounts.

The court-appointed monitor sought directions on whether Di Battista Gambin Developments Limited (DBG) should pay the legal fees incurred by the Di Battista respondents for their appeal of a winding-up order.

The court found that the appeal was solely for the benefit of the individual Di Battista respondents, whose conduct had been found oppressive, and not for the mutual benefit or ordinary course of DBG's business.

Therefore, DBG should not fund the appeal costs, and the Di Battista respondents were ordered to repay any legal fees already paid by DBG.

The children of Stanislaw and Jadwiga Wroblewski disputed the validity of codicils to their parents' wills, which purported to gift properties to Krystyna Romoli.

Helen Piekut, an applicant, sought a declaration on the codicils' validity.

Krystyna Romoli moved for summary judgment to dismiss Helen's application as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, while Helen cross-moved for summary judgment to declare the codicils invalid.

The court dismissed Krystyna's motion, finding Helen's application for declaratory relief was not statute-barred.

The court granted Helen's cross-motion, declaring the codicils invalid due to insufficient evidence of due execution, suspicious circumstances surrounding their preparation by Krystyna, and doubts about the testator's capacity.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order for child support.

The respondent father claimed he was unemployed and had limited income, despite living an extravagant lifestyle funded by his wealthy father (the children's grandfather) through gifts, loans, and family trusts.

The court found the father's financial disclosure inadequate and drew an adverse inference.

Applying the Bak factors, the court imputed an annual income of $463,863 to the father based on his lifestyle, corporate add-backs, and the history of generous gifts.

The father was ordered to pay table child support and a proportionate share of section 7 expenses, including a fixed annual amount for extracurricular activities.

The defendant, David Aiello, brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and the striking of his statement of defence.

The default judgment arose from his failure to close on a property purchase and subsequent repeated non-compliance with court orders, including deadlines for undertakings and retaining counsel.

The court applied the five-factor test from *Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen* to determine if setting aside the default judgment was in the interests of justice.

The motion was dismissed, as Aiello failed to provide a plausible excuse for his numerous breaches of court orders and did not establish an arguable defence on the merits.

The parties separated after a 13-year marriage.

The central issues at trial were the determination of the respondent husband's income as a self-employed musician, the treatment of his royalty income, the imputation of income to the applicant wife, spousal support, child support, and the equalization of net family property.

The court found that the husband's royalty income should be included for support purposes and capitalized for property equalization, rejecting the application of the rule against double-dipping.

Income was imputed to both parties.

The court ordered the husband to pay table child support, a proportionate share of section 7 expenses, compensatory spousal support for a fixed duration of nine years, and an equalization payment of $37,095.57.

The applicant, Muhammad Watto, and two corporations he controlled, brought two applications.

The first sought a declaration of oppression against the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council for revoking approval of continuing professional development programs.

The second sought the appointment of an inspector to investigate the Regulatory Council's affairs.

The court dismissed both applications, finding no proven oppression and no demonstrated need for an inspector, as the applicant lacked standing for the oppression claim regarding the corporations and failed to establish a prima facie case for an investigation.

The plaintiffs brought an action in defamation against the defendant, a former union member, for publishing numerous derogatory posts and videos online.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and the defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that an anti-SLAPP motion can be heard concurrently with a summary judgment motion.

The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the harm suffered by the plaintiffs outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding the posts defamatory and malicious, and awarded a permanent injunction and costs.

This case involved the breakdown of a short marriage and an application for divorce and equalization of net family properties.

The applicant husband sought an equalization payment, while the respondent wife disputed the amount and requested an unequal division, alleging the marriage was for immigration purposes.

The court calculated the equalization payment owed by the wife to the husband as $3,660.57.

The court denied the wife's request for an unequal division, finding that the "unconscionability" threshold under the Family Law Act was not met, and the payment was not "disproportionately large" given the brief 17-month cohabitation period.

Credibility findings favored the respondent wife regarding asset valuations.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a summary judgment motion where the plaintiff, Birchcliffe Core-Harbour Inc., was partially successful in recovering its $25,000 deposit but failed in its claim for $187,500 in loss of bargain damages.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The defendants, Stella and Stainton Pinnock, sought substantial indemnity costs of over $95,000 or partial indemnity of over $82,000, arguing the complexity of novel legal arguments.

The plaintiff argued for no costs or a maximum of $2,475.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors and the principle of proportionality, found the defendants' claimed hours disproportionate to their partial success and awarded them $20,000 in fees plus $3,250 in disbursements, plus HST, to be paid by the plaintiff.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion where the third parties (McMillan LLP, Philip Thompson, and Marssa Giahi) were granted judgment in a solicitors' negligence action brought by the defendants (Crosslink Bridge Corp. and Andrew Penuvchev).

The third parties sought substantial indemnity costs, citing complete success and a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendants opposed, raising access to justice concerns and disputing the reasonableness and proportionality of the hours claimed.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors and the principle of proportionality, found the time spent by counsel for the third parties to be disproportionate to the result.

Consequently, the court reduced McMillan LLP's requested costs from $209,897.73 to $140,000 and Philip Thompson and Marssa Giahi's requested costs from $256,604.64 to $110,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, deeming these adjusted amounts reasonable in the circumstances.

The plaintiffs, having been wholly successful in their breach of contract action for a real estate commission, sought substantial indemnity costs from the date of their offer to settle and full indemnity costs based on the defendants' bad faith.

The defendants conceded entitlement to partial indemnity costs to the offer date and substantial indemnity thereafter but challenged the quantum and the claim for full indemnity.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors and the principle of proportionality, found the plaintiffs' claimed hours to be disproportionate to the complexity and duration of the four-day trial.

Full indemnity costs were denied as the defendants' conduct during litigation did not meet the threshold for reprehensible behavior.

The court significantly reduced the claimed hours for various litigation stages and fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $191,500 plus HST for fees and $6,850.43 plus HST for disbursements, along with prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff, Birchcliffe Core-Harbour Inc., sought summary judgment against the defendants, Stella Pinnock and Stainton Pinnock, for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale, claiming damages for loss of bargain and return of a deposit.

The defendants failed to deliver clear title due to an outstanding mortgage with substantial arrears.

The plaintiff subsequently purchased the property from the mortgagee via a power of sale.

The court found the defendants breached the agreement, entitling the plaintiff to the return of the deposit.

However, the claim for loss of bargain was dismissed, as the defendants had no equity in the property, and the "bargain" was deemed illusory.

The defendants' counterclaim for bad faith was also dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a successful Rule 21 motion where the defendant struck out the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract and negligence.

The court awarded costs to the successful defendant, affirming the general principle that a successful party is entitled to costs, especially when the matter was resolved early, minimizing legal fees and court resources.

The defendant's proposed costs of $10,000 were found to be fair and reasonable and were not disputed by the plaintiff.

The respondent father moved to set aside a default judgment obtained after an uncontested trial in a family law matter.

He claimed he did not understand court procedures, failed to respond promptly due to a learning disability, and had an arguable defense.

The court applied the five-factor test from Mountain View Farms v. McQueen, finding that the respondent did not bring the motion promptly, provided an implausible explanation for his default given his legal training and warnings, and failed to demonstrate an arguable defense on the merits of the original claims (separation date, matrimonial home value, equalization, custody, income, spousal support).

The motion was denied, and the applicant was awarded costs.

The plaintiffs, Henry Jung and Long Ocean Holding Ltd., brought two motions for summary judgment seeking the return of deposits plus interest for commercial and residential units in the former Trump Tower.

The defendant, Talon International Inc., counterclaimed for forfeiture of the deposits, alleging breach of contract.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that the agreements of purchase and sale were terminated through no fault of the purchasers due to Talon's receivership and subsequent sale of the units to a third party.

The court also found Talon's statements of adjustments to be aggressive and overreaching, and that the plaintiffs' actions for specific performance were not a breach of contract.

The third-party solicitors McMillan LLP, Philip Thompson, and Marssa Giahi brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims of negligence brought against them by defendants Crosslink Bridge Corp. and Andrew Penuvchev.

The defendants alleged the solicitors failed to warn them of environmental risks associated with purchasing contaminated railway lands.

The court found that the solicitors were not negligent, as their retainers were limited, the clients were sophisticated and had conducted their own due diligence, and the environmental disclosure documents were not provided to the solicitors.

Furthermore, the court found the third-party claims were barred by the expiration of the applicable limitation periods.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the claims against the third parties were dismissed.

This case involved a real estate commission dispute where the plaintiffs, Hurst Real Estate Service Inc. and DTZ Canada Inc., sought a 5% commission on the sale of a commercial property.

The court found that a binding contract was formed between the real estate agent, David Hurst, and the defendant Sam Sadr/Great Lands Corporation, entitling the plaintiffs to the commission.

The defendants' technical defenses, including the absence of a signed commission agreement and arguments under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, were rejected.

The court also found Sam Sadr personally liable for inducing the breach of contract and for being a party to the agreement.

Blackjet Inc. sought summary judgment against Skyline Investments Inc. et al. for unpaid marketing fees under an Agency Agreement.

The defendants disputed the amount, alleging double-billing and Blackjet's breach of contract for failing to provide monthly reconciliations and appoint an account manager.

The court granted summary judgment, finding some double-billing by Blackjet but dismissing the defendants' breach of contract claim as they had waived their right to enforce it.

Blackjet was awarded a reduced amount for unpaid fees and late payment fees, along with pre- and post-judgment interest.