3 total
The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the applicants for reprehensible litigation conduct.
This is a costs endorsement following an unsuccessful application by the applicants.
The respondents, Nick Giannopoulos and Panagiota Papastefanou, were entirely successful.
Nick Giannopoulos was awarded partial indemnity costs from the applicants, with the estate indemnifying the remainder of his costs as he was an estate trustee upholding the will.
Panagiota Papastefanou was awarded substantial indemnity costs due to the applicants' reprehensible litigation conduct, including character vilification and publicizing privileged communications.
The Children's Lawyer, representing minor respondents, was awarded full indemnity costs from the estate, reflecting a fair sharing of necessary costs for protecting the children's interests.
Motion for directions in will challenge dismissed as applicants failed to meet minimal evidentiary threshold.
The applicants, adult siblings, sought a declaration that their late father lacked capacity or was unduly influenced when he executed a new will in 2021 that favoured their brother.
They brought a motion for directions and production of the deceased's medical, legal, and financial records.
Applying the minimal evidentiary threshold from Neuberger v. York, the court found that the applicants failed to adduce credible evidence of incapacity or undue influence.
The court noted that the applicants' evidence consisted largely of conjecture, cherry-picked medical records, and unsupported allegations against the father's caregiver.
The motion and application for directions were dismissed.
Costs awarded to defendants after plaintiff unreasonably refused to consent to late response to Request to Admit.
The parties resolved a motion regarding a late response to a Request to Admit on consent, leaving only the issue of costs to be decided.
The plaintiff had refused to consent to a short extension of time after the defendants' counsel inadvertently missed the deadline.
The court found that the plaintiff's refusal to consent to a reasonable extension request unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings, especially since the plaintiff had failed to obtain the required leave under the Construction Lien Act before serving the Request to Admit.
Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.
