Bernie Romano

The court quantified costs previously awarded to the defendants (excluding one individual) against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff failed to submit costs outlines as directed, leading the court to infer that its costs would not have supported its position.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs for a motion at $10,075 and 50% of the trial costs at $194,159.70, considering the complexity, importance, and financial risk of the underlying litigation concerning a significant property.

Following a Court of Appeal decision that partially reversed the trial judgment regarding branch membership, the parties appeared to resolve outstanding issues and discharge the Receiver.

The court dismissed remaining claims on consent and reassessed the trial costs.

Finding that the defendants achieved a substantively better outcome on appeal by retaining their membership and ability to attempt secession again, the court awarded the defendants one-half of their trial costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court maintained the 50/50 split for receivership costs but ordered the plaintiff to fully indemnify the defendants for the Receiver's costs of the appeal.

A court-appointed receiver sought approval of its reports, approval of fees and disbursements, authorization to sell a property to fund payment of those fees, and directions regarding the validity of a corporate board election.

The court approved the receiver’s activities and found the fees of both the receiver and its counsel to be fair and reasonable given the unusual and contentious nature of the receivership.

The court authorized the sale of the property under the receiver’s control to generate funds to pay the receiver’s outstanding fees.

The request for directions regarding the validity of the corporate board election was declined as beyond the scope of the receivership proceeding.

The court ordered that the parties benefiting from the receivership share the receiver’s fees on a 50/50 basis.

The respondents sought costs following a motion in which they obtained part of the alternative relief requested, although the applicant’s pleadings were not struck.

The court considered written costs submissions from the respondents, while the applicant declined to provide submissions due to an inability to obtain instructions from the client residing abroad.

The court found that the respondents achieved substantial and significant relief that advanced the proceeding.

In the circumstances, the court fixed reasonable costs in a modest lump sum.

Costs were ordered payable by the applicant to the respondents.

The applicant commenced an application seeking possession of a property, forfeiture of a $30,000 deposit under an agreement of purchase and sale, and damages arising from alleged vandalism and breach of the agreement.

The respondents argued the property was unsafe and sought to strike the applicant’s affidavit for failure to answer undertakings and refusals from cross-examination, while also seeking return of the deposit.

The court held that credibility disputes and conflicting evidence made the issues unsuitable for determination on the application record.

Pursuant to Rule 38.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the remaining issues of damages and entitlement to the deposit were ordered to proceed to trial and the application was converted into an action.

The deposit was ordered paid into court pending determination by the trial judge.

The plaintiff religious corporation sought repayment of funds raised by its congregation that were used by the defendants to purchase and renovate a new, larger place of worship under a newly incorporated entity.

The plaintiff also sought repayment for a mortgage placed on its original property to fund its conversion into a funeral home.

The court dismissed both the plaintiff's claims for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion, as well as the defendants' counterclaim for the value of improvements.

The court found that the fundraising and property transition were done with the knowledge and support of the original directors, and both parties ultimately benefited from the respective properties.

The court-appointed Receiver for the properties of a local branch of The Polish Alliance of Canada moved for directions regarding its administration.

The plaintiff national association criticized the Receiver's neutrality, objecting to the presence of former branch executives on the property and disputing the membership list for an upcoming executive election.

The court approved the Receiver's conduct as prudent and neutral, rejected the plaintiff's attempt to unilaterally dictate branch membership, and directed the Receiver to hold an election among the 19 recognized remaining branch members.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion seeking directions regarding implementation of a prior order determining that certain lands were held in trust for members of a branch of a national organization and that the defendants were not proper representatives after resigning from the parent organization.

The court found that the defendants had no authority to admit new members or call a meeting to elect a new executive.

To prevent confusion and protect the property pending proper reconstitution of the branch membership, the court appointed a receiver and manager to take control of the branch assets and supervise the reconstitution process.

The court also prohibited the defendants and associated individuals from holding a purported members’ meeting or conducting an election of the branch executive.

The plaintiff, a national not-for-profit umbrella organization, sought a declaration that it owned the real property of one of its local branches after the branch's leadership purported to secede.

The defendants, representing the seceding branch, argued the branch was autonomous and owned the property beneficially.

The court found that the corporate holding vehicle held legal title to the property in trust for the members of the branch from time to time.

The court also held that the branch's purported secession was invalid because it lacked the unanimous consent of its members, meaning the branch and its beneficial property interests remained within the parent organization.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action following the death of Frederick Fowlow, who died from a detached vascular graft four days after undergoing an axillofemoral bypass surgery performed by the defendant surgeon.

The plaintiffs alleged the surgeon was negligent for using a graft that the manufacturer expressly warned was not recommended for that specific procedure.

The court found that the surgeon breached the standard of care by failing to read the manufacturer's instructions, using the non-recommended graft, and failing to inform the patient of the manufacturer's warning.

However, the action was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to prove causation; there was insufficient evidence to establish that the detachment of the graft was caused by the type of graft used rather than being a known inherent risk of the procedure.