Caroline Ellen Annmarie Abela

The applicants brought an application under the Arbitration Act, 1991 to declare that an arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear claims brought by the respondent in a family business dispute.

The dispute centered on whether the respondent, who was a shareholder of a corporate partner but not a 'partner' or 'principal' under the partnership agreement, was a 'party' entitled to invoke the arbitration clause.

Applying the principles of contractual interpretation from Sattva, the court found that the plain wording of the agreement, including the recitals and enurement clause, contemplated that shareholders of the partners were parties.

The court concluded that the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the respondent's claims for dissolution and increased compensation, as well as the applicants' claims regarding management compensation.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Parghi J. dated February 4, 2026.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

Following a successful application regarding an international fraud scheme, the applicants sought costs against the respondents.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $185,000 against the corporate respondent, Iberbanco, due to its ongoing willful disregard for court orders, misrepresentations to the court, unfounded allegations against the applicants, and efforts to impede the investigation.

The court declined to order costs against the individual respondents personally, as no relief had been granted against them in the main application.

The applicants brought an application seeking relief against Seker for fraudulently misappropriating USD $1,122,833.28 by posing as a legitimate bank and providing fraudulent account details.

The applicants also sought disclosure and payment orders against Iberbanco, the money service business through which the funds were diverted.

The court found that Seker engaged in civil fraud and ordered it to pay the misappropriated funds.

The court also ordered Iberbanco to return bank fees, pay certain funds to the applicants, pay disputed funds into court pursuant to Rule 45.02, and comply with a previous disclosure order, rejecting Iberbanco's argument that disclosure was prohibited by the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Following a decision granting judgment in favour of the respondents on an application involving a mortgagee's right to sell property, the respondents sought costs of $270,292.15.

The applicant opposed costs on the basis that the respondents had provided a misleading answer to the court regarding the arm's-length nature of a proposed purchaser, which was subsequently assigned to an entity connected to an investor behind the second mortgage.

The court found the respondents' refusal to answer follow-up questions about the assignment and the relationship between the purchaser and the investor raised serious doubts about the accuracy of representations made during the proceeding.

Exercising its discretion to depart from the general principle that costs follow the event, the court declined to award costs to the successful party as a sanction for non-cooperation with the court.

This costs decision addresses the allocation of costs for a distribution motion concerning competing claims over preserved funds in a complex fraud and investment scheme case.

The Trial Parties, who succeeded at trial on fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment claims, sought to recover their judgment from preserved funds.

The Settling Parties, who had reached settlement agreements with the defendants before trial, sought equitable liens and constructive trusts over the same preserved funds.

The court awarded costs to the Trial Parties against the Settling Parties, finding that the Settling Parties had deliberately delayed enforcement of their settlements and improperly sought to benefit from the Trial Parties' litigation efforts without bearing the associated costs and burdens.

The moving party, Hermina Developments Inc., sought a stay of an order permitting the respondents to sell a 26.7-acre parcel of land in Woodstock, Ontario, pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, Hermina failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court held that any losses could be compensated by damages and that the property was not unique.

The respondents were awarded costs.

On a post-trial distribution motion arising from a failed land development scheme, the court addressed competing claims between settling investors and investors who proceeded through trial and appeals.

The settling parties obtained judgment on their settlement agreements, but were denied equitable liens over preserved funds because their rights were contractual, the defendants were not shown to own the preserved funds, and equity favoured the trial parties who preserved assets and bore the burdens of the litigation.

The court also held that the trial parties lacked standing to raise limitation defences to enforcement of the settlements, and excluded a disputed email under settlement privilege.

The funds paid into court were ordered distributed pro rata among the trial parties, subject to specified limitations tied to claims against one defendant.

The plaintiff sought the continuation of an interim Mareva injunction against multiple defendants, alleging fraud and dissipation of assets.

The court found an overwhelming case of fraud by Stephen Lee Heimbecker and Nestig Inc., and a prima facie case of joint participation, willful blindness, or assistance in the fraud by Joanna Marie Heimbecker and Keystone Capital Inc. The court determined that irreparable harm would occur without the injunction and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff.

The court granted the interlocutory Mareva Order, including the release of certain frozen funds to the plaintiff.

The court rejected Joanna Marie Heimbecker's requests to open a new bank account for future employment income and to sell jewellery for legal expenses and tuition, citing a lack of complete and accurate financial disclosure and serious inconsistencies.

The court also declined to reduce the living expense exemption for the Heimbeckers at this stage but left open the possibility if disclosure issues persist.

The plaintiff, Bradley J. Grant Investments Inc. (Grant), brought a motion for interim Mareva and Norwich orders against Nestig Inc. and Stephen Lee Heimbecker, along with other related parties.

Grant alleged a fraud exceeding $51 million, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, claiming that Heimbecker induced advances for specific investments but failed to provide documentation or repay funds.

Heimbecker contended the relationship was a simple debt evidenced by promissory notes and denied fraud.

The court found Grant established a strong prima facie case of fraud, breach of trust, and/or breach of fiduciary duty, primarily due to Heimbecker's failure to disclose the use of advanced funds.

The court also found a serious risk of asset dissipation, noting Heimbecker's liquidation of assets (racehorses, farm, home) and potential relocation.

The interim Mareva injunction was granted to preserve assets, and the Norwich order was granted to compel financial institutions to disclose information, as Heimbecker was the only practical source and had refused disclosure.

The moving party brought an urgent motion for a stay pending appeal, which was adjourned and ultimately became moot when her motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The responding estate trustees and the Children's Lawyer sought their costs of the stay motion on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the responding parties were required to oppose the stay motion due to the broad relief initially sought and the urgency claimed by the moving party.

Applying the principles from Sawdon Estate, the court made a blended costs order, fixing the responding parties' full indemnity costs and directing the moving party to pay a partial indemnity portion, with the balance to be paid from the estate.

The moving parties (defendants/appellants) sought to set aside parts of a motion judge's order that lifted an automatic stay of a fraud judgment and ordered payment into court.

The basis for their request was the motion judge's failure to consider a Croatian share transfer document.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the Croatian document lacked evidentiary weight as it was not accompanied by a certified English translation as required by s. 125(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, was not produced at trial, and was attached to an affidavit from an unreliable witness containing hearsay.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Dietrich J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the Office of the Children's Lawyer and $5,000 to the responding estate trustees.

The plaintiffs invested in a land development project in Brampton promoted by the defendants.

The defendants promised to develop the property into a subdivision and deliver serviced lots to the investors.

However, the defendants never developed the property, secretly used project funds to pay for their personal expenses, and ultimately sold the undeveloped land to a third-party developer for over $15.3 million.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the actions, finding that the defendants had engaged in a deliberate pattern of deceptive and self-serving misconduct.

The court imposed a constructive trust and awarded the plaintiffs a pro-rata share of the sale proceeds based on their capital contributions, totaling over $10.6 million, plus $150,000 in punitive damages.

The moving parties sought pre-discovery disclosure of the responding parties' personal and corporate tax returns, notices of assessment, and bank statements from 2002 to 2019.

The underlying litigation involves a real estate development dispute where the moving parties allege the responding parties improperly used mortgage proceeds for personal expenses.

The court found the requested documents were relevant to tracing funds and testing the responding parties' assertions about their contributions to the property.

The court ordered the production of the tax returns and bank statements, but limited the temporal scope to the period between 2002 and 2016, when the property was sold.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a U.S. resident with no assets in Ontario, in a complex family dispute over trust funds.

The plaintiff claimed impecuniosity and that his action was not devoid of merit.

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated impecuniosity with sufficient financial disclosure and that, while the merits were not decisive, they favored granting security due to prior releases.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs totaling $130,000 on a partial indemnity scale, balancing the plaintiff's access to justice with the defendants' protection against an unenforceable costs award.

The court fixed the costs of a motion where the defendant successfully opposed the registration of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on its property.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $51,051.67, arguing it made a Rule 49 offer and the motion was complex.

The court found the Rule 49 offer invalid because it required unanimous acceptance by all moving parties and third-party consent.

The court also found the costs claimed completely unreasonable and excessive for a CPL motion, noting that counsel spent 222 hours on the matter.

The court fixed costs at $6,000, payable 75% by one group of plaintiffs and 25% by another.

The plaintiffs, investors in a real estate development, sought to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against three lots and to register a preservation order regarding a vendor take-back mortgage on title.

The property had been sold to a third-party developer, Brampton G&A. The court dismissed the motion, finding that the parties had previously agreed not to register orders on title, the property was an investment property rather than unique, and the existing preservation order requiring mortgage payments to be paid into court provided sufficient protection without encumbering the third party's title.

The court addressed a costs dispute concerning a claimed accounting disbursement incurred during motion proceedings involving a family trust dispute.

The responding parties argued that the accounting work performed by an accounting firm was duplicative of the work performed by an expert witness retained by the moving party.

The court found that the accounting firm and the expert witness served distinct roles and that the accounting work was reasonably necessary in light of accounting evidence advanced by the opposing parties.

The court also noted that the responding parties themselves had retained multiple accounting professionals.

The challenged disbursement was therefore allowed.

Following a successful interim motion, the plaintiff sought substantial partial indemnity costs including legal fees and significant disbursements.

The defendants challenged the seniority of plaintiff’s counsel, the necessity of multiple cross-examinations, and certain expert-related disbursements.

The court rejected arguments that senior counsel or the scope of cross-examination rendered the costs unreasonable and held that the successful party was entitled to recover reasonable litigation expenses incurred to respond to the defendants’ positions.

Expert accounting fees incurred to respond to the opposing expert were allowed.

The court fixed legal fees at $75,000 plus HST and allowed most disbursements, reserving determination of one accounting disbursement pending further submissions.