Bruce A. Macdonald

The defendant moved under r. 21.01(3)(d) to strike the plaintiff's second summary judgment motion seeking damages for loss of value of a property arising from a failed real estate transaction, arguing the claim was barred by res judicata and constituted an abuse of process.

A prior summary judgment by Goodman J. had awarded the plaintiff partial damages but dismissed the loss-of-value claim for failure to adduce proper expert valuation evidence.

The court found that both issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel applied, as the same issue had been decided in the prior final proceeding between the same parties.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that r. 20.07 permitted a fresh claim for the same head of damages previously dismissed, holding that the rule applies only to relief not covered in the original motion.

The defendant's motion was granted and the plaintiff's second summary judgment motion was dismissed with costs of $7,500.

This decision addresses the costs of two motions brought by the applicant and respondent in a family law matter concerning the sale of matrimonial property and financial disclosure.

The court found that neither motion should have proceeded to a hearing, noting the applicant's initial frustration but also her failure to adjust her motion once issues resolved, and her non-compliance with financial disclosure rules.

The respondent was successful on the financial disclosure issue.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 to the respondent, payable by the applicant from her share of the matrimonial home sale proceeds.

This ruling addresses the issue of costs following a decision granting a permanent injunction to Foxgate Developments Inc. and confirming an interlocutory injunction for The Corporation of Haldimand County.

The successful parties, Foxgate and Haldimand, sought costs from the defendant, Skyler Williams.

Williams argued that the litigation was in the public interest, warranting an exemption from costs, or that costs should be deferred or referred to an assessment officer.

The court dismissed Williams' arguments, finding that the case did not meet the high threshold for public interest litigation.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Foxgate ($60,000) and Haldimand ($13,000), to be paid forthwith by Skyler Williams, determining that his conduct did not warrant solicitor-client or full indemnity costs.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy to allow the landlord's mother to move into the property.

The tenants challenged the Board's finding that the landlords required the unit in good faith for the mother's residential occupation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the finding of good faith and intended full-time occupancy were findings of fact, and the appeal raised no extricable question of law as required by s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

In a supplemental endorsement following a successful derivative action, the court clarified the award of prejudgment interest and costs.

The court awarded prejudgment interest at the prescribed rate from the date the action was regularized.

The court rejected the third parties' request for full indemnity costs under the Business Corporations Act, confirming the previous partial indemnity award of $125,000, but clarified that the costs are payable solely to the third parties who funded the litigation, rather than jointly with the plaintiff company.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages for breach of fiduciary duty in a derivative action, the successful plaintiff and third parties sought full indemnity costs.

The court declined to award elevated costs, finding the defendants' conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $125,000, rejecting the defendants' argument that costs should be denied for failing to beat the simplified procedure threshold.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions for leave to intervene from three public interest organizations (1492 Windsor Law Coalition, Aboriginal Legal Services, and Canadian Civil Liberties Association) in an appeal concerning the striking of an Indigenous appellant's pleadings and a substantial costs award in an injunction proceeding related to a land dispute.

The motions judge had found the appellant in contempt of court.

The Court dismissed all motions for intervention, finding that 1492 WLC and ALS's submissions inappropriately expanded the legal issues on appeal by focusing on injunctions, and CCLA's submissions largely overlapped with the appellant's arguments.

The court concluded that the appellant could adequately address the Indigenous perspective.

No costs were awarded against the proposed interveners.

In a derivative action brought on behalf of a real estate investment company, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants, who were equal shareholders and officers, misappropriated corporate funds while managing the company's properties.

The court found the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Business Corporations Act by misappropriating rent payments, retaining insurance claim proceeds, and taking unequal advances that reduced a shareholder loan.

The court ordered the defendants to pay $87,048.57 in compensatory damages to the corporation.

Claims for punitive damages and a third-party action against the other shareholders were dismissed.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion seeking to remove her survivor's benefit pension from Net Family Property (NFP) calculations and equalize it separately by setting it off against the respondent's monthly pension payments.

The respondent opposed this, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction.

The court found it had no jurisdiction under the Family Law Act, s.10.1(5), to remove the applicant's survivor pension from NFP calculations because it was not "in pay" on the valuation date.

The court ordered the respondent's OMERS pension to be removed from his NFP calculation and divided equally at source, as both parties initially agreed for this pension.

The applicant's survivor pension was ordered to be included in her NFP calculation, leading to an equalization payment owed by the applicant to the respondent.

The Respondent sought costs for his successful motion for partition and sale and the Applicant's unsuccessful motions for exclusive possession and disclosure.

The Respondent requested $9,427.85, representing 83% of actual costs.

The Applicant argued for no costs or $1,500.

The court found the Respondent completely successful, applying the presumption of costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The Applicant's disclosure request was deemed a last-minute attempt to stall.

The court fixed costs at $7,500, ordering the Applicant to pay this amount to the Respondent.

The Respondent moved for partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, while the Applicant sought exclusive possession of the home and production of documentary evidence.

The court granted the partition and sale, finding no oppressive conduct by the Respondent and that the sale would not prejudice the Applicant's property rights under the Family Law Act, provided her share of proceeds was not frozen.

The Applicant's request for exclusive possession was denied, as there were no dependent children and the parties' financial positions were comparable.

The Applicant's disclosure request was deemed premature, while the Respondent's was satisfied.

This decision addresses the final calculation of equalization payment and costs following a 13-day trial.

The court found the applicant, Daniel Parry, to be the successful party and awarded him costs on a full indemnity basis due to the respondent, Eda Parry's, unreasonable and bad faith conduct throughout the litigation, including breaches of court orders, failure to disclose, and untruthfulness.

The court reduced the claimed fees slightly for proportionality on minor issues.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the reinstatement of parenting time arrangements, alleging the respondent mother was denying access due to concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, reviewed the materials and determined that the motion was not urgent or an emergency under the Chief Justice's Notice regarding suspended court operations.

The court clarified that "urgent and emergency matters" in family law, particularly concerning the well-being of a child, were intended to mirror the language of the Hague Convention regarding wrongful removal or retention, and did not apply to general parenting time disputes.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were encouraged to resolve the matter cooperatively.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a three-day trial concerning child and spousal support.

Both parties sought costs from the other.

The court found mixed success on the substantive issues, including the imputation of income, retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and life insurance.

The court also considered the admissibility of settlement offers exchanged during a settlement conference, noting the conflict between Family Law Rules 17(23) and 18(16) regarding confidentiality.

Ultimately, finding no unreasonable behaviour or bad faith by either party and mixed success at trial, the court ordered no costs payable by either party to the other, emphasizing the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

The applicant's contempt motion against the respondent was dismissed.

The court found the respondent's actions regarding missed access were due to concerns for the child's well-being, not contempt.

As the successful party, the respondent was awarded substantial indemnity costs, fixed at $8,857, payable by the applicant.

The applicant's claim for costs was dismissed.

This case involved a trial of issues arising from an application by Jack Sentineal, as estate trustee for his father Frederick Clement Sentineal, to pass his accounts.

The defendant, Jeffrey Sentineal, opposed the accounts, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of assets, and unreasonable delay by the trustee.

The court addressed disputes over estate assets, including real estate and chattels, and the financial dealings of a family business (Queen’s Royal Tours Inc.).

The court found that Jeffrey had converted certain estate chattels and contributed significantly to the delay in estate administration.

Jack was found responsible for a late tax filing but otherwise discharged his duties reasonably.

The court approved the estate accounts with adjustments, awarded Jack executor's compensation, and referred legal fees for assessment.

Following competing family law motions regarding interim spousal support, business valuation, and control of corporate bank accounts, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant had partial success, obtaining interim spousal support and an order for a business valuation, while the respondent succeeded on the issue of exclusive control of the business bank account.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than strictly mathematical, the court determined that the applicant was the overall successful party.

However, the amount sought was excessive and there had been divided success.

Costs were therefore fixed at a reduced amount.

The applicant sought costs in the amount of $9,066.53 following a motion to change the parties' separation agreement brought by the respondent.

The respondent sought to terminate his support obligations and expunge arrears.

The respondent failed to comply with court orders for financial disclosure, did not attend a case conference, and ultimately consented to an order striking his pleadings.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, finding the respondent behaved unreasonably throughout the proceedings by refusing to use dispute resolution provisions, failing to provide required disclosure, and putting the applicant to considerable legal expense.

The court reduced the costs award from $9,066.53 to $7,500.00, considering proportionality and the respondent's limited financial means, though finding ability to pay was relevant to quantum but not to entitlement.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to increase his parenting time, reduce his child support obligation, and terminate spousal support.

The parties consented to changes in the time-sharing arrangements.

However, the court dismissed the respondent's claims regarding child and spousal support.

The court found that the respondent failed to prove a material change in his income or net worth, noting significant credibility issues and unexplained financial transactions.

The court imputed an annual income of $100,000 to the respondent and ordered that his support obligations be secured by a charge on his properties.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default summary judgment that had set aside two property transfers as fraudulent conveyances.

The court found that the defendant failed to satisfy the preconditions for setting aside a default judgment, as his explanation for the default was implausible, he delayed in seeking relief, and he failed to present a defence on the merits.

The court also rejected the argument that the plaintiff had no standing to attack the transfers because he was not a creditor at the time they were made, noting that the Fraudulent Conveyances Act protects both past and future victims of fraud.

The motion was dismissed.