B. Jaeger

The plaintiff was entirely successful in defeating the defendant's motion for security for costs.

The plaintiff sought costs of $21,200 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendant argued the parties should bear their own costs or costs should be in the cause.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs and noted the plaintiff's time expenditure was somewhat excessive.

Costs were fixed at $11,000 inclusive of HST payable forthwith.

Following the sudden death of a successful furniture manufacturer, his common-law spouse and his daughters from a previous marriage engaged in extensive litigation.

The spouse, who operated her own furniture business from the same premises as the deceased's failing company, sued the daughters, the estate, and various professional advisors for breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and unlawful interference with economic relations after the deceased's company was placed into bankruptcy and her access to equipment was interrupted.

The court dismissed the conspiracy and interference claims, finding the defendants acted reasonably to manage the insolvency, but awarded the spouse $72,520 for breach of a handwritten lease and equipment agreement.

In related applications, the court upheld a change of life insurance beneficiary executed by the deceased before his death and enforced the terms of a cohabitation agreement, allowing the spouse to remain in the family home and ordering the estate to pay $84,106.25 for property maintenance and capital expenses.

The plaintiffs, minority shareholders in a cement contracting business, brought a motion for interim relief in an oppression action, alleging the majority shareholder misappropriated corporate funds for personal use.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to compel mandatory mediation and arbitration and to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered against the majority shareholder's spouse's home.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part, appointing a monitor and requiring board approval for major decisions, while leaving day-to-day management with the majority shareholder.

The defendants' motions were dismissed, as the shareholders agreement did not mandate arbitration and the CPL was validly maintained to protect the corporation's constructive trust claim.