Brian L. DeLorenzi

The moving party was successful on a motion to compel the estate trustee to pass accounts and sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The estate trustee argued that costs should be deferred or reduced due to unresolved issues in the main application, including whether there would be sufficient residue to pay legacies.

The court found that while the moving party was entitled to costs, the determination of the scale, amount, and who should pay (the estate or the trustee personally) was best deferred to the judge hearing the main application.

The moving party, a beneficiary under her late mother's will, brought a motion for an order requiring the estate trustee to particularize estate assets and pass his accounts.

The estate trustee opposed the motion, arguing the request was overbroad and akin to a fishing expedition, and noted an ongoing dispute over a joint account held by the moving party and the deceased.

The court granted the motion, finding the moving party had a prima facie financial interest in the estate and the estate trustee had failed to provide a clear response regarding the estate's assets.

The court held the request was reasonable given that specific bequests had not been paid and the estate trustee asserted there might be insufficient assets.

Following earlier motions by several defendants seeking dismissal of the action, a stay, or security for costs, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The defendants succeeded only in obtaining security for costs orders, and those orders were granted in amounts lower than requested.

The court refused the defendants’ requests to dismiss the action based on a final release, want of prosecution, or late service of the statement of claim.

Applying s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the success of the parties to be divided when viewed globally.

In the circumstances, no costs order was appropriate.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action on the basis of a signed release, failure to serve the statement of claim on time, and want of prosecution, or alternatively for security for costs.

The plaintiff, a Japanese exchange student, was stabbed by another passenger on a Greyhound bus.

The court dismissed the motions to dismiss the action, finding triable issues regarding the release and no prejudice from the minor delay in service.

However, the court granted the motion for security for costs, finding the plaintiff was not impecunious and his claim against the bus company and police lacked a good chance of success based on foreseeability.

The plaintiff was ordered to post $15,000 in security.