Christopher A. Moore

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs and the release of funds held in trust from a real estate transaction.

On the return of the motion, after the court highlighted significant evidentiary deficiencies in their affidavit materials, the defendants abandoned the motion in its entirety.

The court formally dismissed the abandoned motion and awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the motion was poorly executed and lacked merit.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 21, the defendants sought their costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff had made sweeping, unproven allegations of fraud, theft, and professional misconduct against the defendants.

The court found that these unfounded allegations warranted elevated costs to sanction the plaintiff's reprehensible conduct.

Additionally, two defendants had made offers to settle that the plaintiff failed to accept, further justifying substantial indemnity costs.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs totaling $58,474.91.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against her former landlord, a real estate agent, a paralegal, her former spouse, and the Ottawa Police Service, alleging an 'eviction scam' that resulted in the loss of her personal property.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to strike the claim and dismiss the action.

The court granted the motions, finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the core dispute, the claims against the real estate agent were statute-barred, and the pleadings failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action against any defendant.

The action was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious against the paralegal and former spouse, and the claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The applicant, a 50% shareholder and director of a restaurant corporation, brought an application for an oppression remedy against his brother (the other 50% shareholder) and his sister-in-law.

The respondents had negotiated a lease buyout without the applicant's knowledge, deposited the proceeds into a separate account, and diverted funds to the sister-in-law under a fabricated security agreement.

The court found that the respondents' actions breached the applicant's reasonable expectations under the unanimous shareholder agreement and constituted oppression.

The court ordered an accounting, the discharge of the security agreement, and the return of diverted funds to a trust account.

The respondent law firm brought a motion to vary an Order for Assessment of a series of legal accounts delivered to the applicant estate trustees over a 12-year period.

The law firm argued the accounts were final and paid, while the client argued they were interim and thus assessable.

The court held that the older accounts, which related to completed matters and had been paid years prior, were final and not liable to assessment.

However, the more recent accounts relating to ongoing litigation were deemed interim and remained liable to assessment.

The Order for Assessment was varied accordingly.

The defendant parents sent an email to the local ringette community complaining about the treatment of their daughter by her volunteer coaches and the league.

The plaintiff coaches sued for defamation, seeking $35,000 in damages.

The defendants brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a SLAPP.

The court granted the motion, finding that the email related to a matter of public interest and that the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the minimal reputational harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The moving parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion to compel the responding party to attend an examination in aid of execution.

The court disallowed costs claimed for the preparation of costs submissions and for the time of a lawyer who attended cross-examination as a witness.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded the moving parties reasonable costs fixed at $4,500.

Following a construction lien trial in which the plaintiff recovered the balance owing for stone installation and successfully defended a counterclaim alleging deficiencies, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, arguing that the defendants engaged in unreasonable conduct by presenting inflated invoices contradicted by their own witness and by making misleading testimony.

The court held that the conduct was unreasonable but did not rise to the level warranting full or substantial indemnity costs.

Considering the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties’ settlement offers, the complexity of the construction litigation, and proportionality, the court awarded costs slightly above partial indemnity.

Costs were fixed at $50,000 plus HST and $3,000 in disbursements.

The plaintiff contractor, Rocksolid, brought an action for the unpaid balance of a contract to install masonry stonework on the defendants' new home.

The defendants counterclaimed for the cost of completing the work and repairing alleged deficiencies.

The court found that the defendants breached the contract by failing to supply sufficient stone, which delayed the project into the winter, and repudiated the contract by refusing to pay for the necessary heating costs and ordering the plaintiff off the jobsite.

The court also held that the defendants failed to mitigate their damages by denying the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to correct the minor deficiencies.

The plaintiff was awarded $18,530.89 on a quantum meruit basis, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

In estate litigation concerning the estate of a deceased testator, the objector brought motions seeking an order requiring the estate to pay transcript costs for an appeal, an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, and a stay of a master’s summary judgment decision validating the will and dismissing the objection.

The court held that the moving party failed to provide sufficient financial evidence to justify shifting transcript costs to the estate and dismissed that request.

While an extension of time to pursue the appeal was granted due to procedural confusion and personal difficulties, the court refused a stay, finding no serious question on appeal, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the estate administration to proceed.

On the respondents’ cross‑motion, a notice of objection filed by another beneficiary after the judgment validating the will was declared out of time and an abuse of process and was removed.

The estate trustees brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a notice of objection challenging the validity of a will.

The objector, the estranged son of the deceased, alleged lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

The court held that the evidence of the drafting solicitor and surrounding circumstances established testamentary capacity and that the objector’s materials—consisting largely of speculation, opinion, and unsupported assertions—did not raise a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Medical records indicating early dementia did not negate testamentary capacity at the time of execution.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the objection and permitting the estate trustees to proceed with administration of the estate in accordance with the will.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing their Rule 21 motion to strike the action as statute‑barred and an abuse of process.

The dispute arose from a payment allegedly made to facilitate the purchase of a condominium, which the responding party claimed was held in trust to provide lifetime accommodation.

The court found there was good reason to doubt the motion judge’s conclusion that the claim for ongoing support avoided the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also expressed doubt that a claim for parental support under s. 32 of the Family Law Act could succeed where the moving parties had never been supported or cared for by the responding party as children.

Leave to appeal was granted on these issues but refused regarding the costs award.