Christopher D. Salazar

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's decision dismissing his action to set aside minutes of settlement dated July 18, 2017, relating to an estate dispute.

The minutes permitted the respondent to purchase an estate property in Coldwater, Ontario for $290,000, with the appellant to receive this amount from remaining estate assets following probate.

The respondent moved into the property but probate remained incomplete eight years later.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding that the respondent's failure to provide a detailed list of estate chattels did not constitute repudiation of the settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error and holding that both parties were jointly responsible for the delay in probate.

The appellant, a former client of the respondent lawyer, posted unflattering comments about him on an online platform.

The respondent sued for defamation and other torts.

The appellant brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the action, arguing her comments were a matter of public interest and that the action was statute-barred under the Libel and Slander Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the comments related to a private dispute and did not constitute a broadcast.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming the contextual inquiry showed no public aspect to the communication and that the appellant failed to prove the platform was a broadcast.

The moving party, Joanne Vaughan, sought a panel review of an endorsement by a single judge of the Court of Appeal, which had granted her an extension of time to perfect her appeal.

She requested amendments to the endorsement, including attributing delay in finalizing a lower court order to the responding party, requiring a Notice of Change in Representation, and setting a new appeal perfection deadline contingent on the resolution of two other motions in the court below.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for review, finding no basis to intervene as the original motion judge had not misapprehended evidence or erred in principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a contempt order and a costs order issued in an estate proceeding.

The appellant, an alternate executor and beneficiary, had been found in contempt for failing to comply with an order to grant access to an estate property and produce documents to the Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The motion judge had ordered an earlier vacation date for the property and awarded $18,000 in costs against the appellant.

The appellate court found no error in the contempt finding, the substituted service order, or the costs award, noting the appeal was largely moot as the property had been sold.

Ms. Sokil sought a stay of an order that accelerated the enforcement date of a writ of possession, leading to her eviction from an Estate property.

Her motion to stay the order pending appeal was dismissed by the motion judge.

Ms. Sokil was subsequently removed from the property, rendering her panel review motion before the Court of Appeal moot.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it served no purpose.

The Plaintiffs sought costs after the Defendants abandoned a motion they had brought seeking various reliefs, including an injunction and declarations regarding a mortgage loan.

The court found that the Defendants' motion was deemed abandoned under Rule 37.09(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, entitling the Plaintiffs to costs forthwith.

The court rejected the Defendants' argument that these were "interim costs" or should be "costs in the cause," distinguishing them from the extraordinary circumstances for interim costs.

While the Defendants' abandoned motion included a request for a declaration that could have disposed of the entire action (akin to a summary judgment), the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs under Rule 20.06, finding that the Defendants did not act unreasonably or in bad faith in bringing or abandoning the motion, as they were genuinely attempting to secure alternative financing.

The Plaintiffs were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

This judgment addresses two consolidated applications: one by Elizabeth Dobis, Estate Trustee, seeking damages and costs from Mark Dobis for misappropriated estate funds, and another by Mark Dobis to pass accounts.

The court found that Mark Dobis had misappropriated funds and ordered him to pay $20,932.24 in damages to the Estate.

The court denied Mark Dobis's request for set-off against potential future claims for dependent's support or unjust enrichment, citing lack of equitable grounds and unliquidated claims.

Mark Dobis's accounts were passed, with the objection resolved by the damages award.

Elizabeth Dobis was also awarded costs totaling $17,100 for her application and $2,100 for a contempt motion that prompted Mark Dobis to comply with a prior order to pass accounts.

The plaintiff, Unique Lighting & Control Corp., sued Green Services Canada Ltd. and its officers, John Green and Patricia Green, for unpaid lighting supplies.

The individual defendants (John and Patricia Green) moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them, arguing no basis for personal liability.

Unique Lighting, the responding party, also sought summary judgment against Green Services and John Green.

The court dismissed the claims against John Green and Patricia Green, finding no grounds to pierce the corporate veil, establish a breach of trust, or prove unjust enrichment.

However, summary judgment was granted in favour of Unique Lighting against Green Services for the outstanding debt of $51,239.00, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

No costs were awarded due to the mixed results.

Elizabeth Dobis, as executrix and sole beneficiary of her late husband's estate, sought possession and control of a rental property and an accounting from her son, Mark Dobis, who had been managing the property and diverting rents.

Mark Dobis opposed, claiming a life interest based on an invalid "Devise" and a moral obligation.

The court granted Elizabeth Dobis possession and control, ordered Mark Dobis to account for and remit diverted funds, and issued permanent injunctive relief against his interference, finding he had no legal or equitable claim to the property.

Mark Dobis brought a motion for an interim interlocutory injunction to restrain Elizabeth Dobis, personally and as Estate Trustee, from dealing with a property at 88 Overton Crescent, and for an order granting leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the property.

Mark Dobis claimed a life interest in the property and sought dependant's support from his late father's estate.

The court applied the three-part test for injunctions and the prerequisites for a CPL.

The court found that Mark Dobis did not raise a serious question to be tried regarding his dependant status or a reasonable claim to an interest in the property, nor would he suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured Elizabeth Dobis.

Both the motion for injunction and the CPL were dismissed.

The applicant sought a declaration of priority over a promissory note assigned to him by 1007937 Ontario Inc., which was also secured by TD Bank and later assigned to the respondent, Mary Eileen Casey.

The court found that the validity of the assignment to the applicant was not sufficiently proven, particularly given that the assignor (1007937 Ontario Inc.) assigned a corporate asset as security for a personal debt of its principal (Mr. Ornsby) while a major creditor (TD Bank, later Ms. Casey) had a prior secured interest.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to the applicant to bring further proceedings to prove the assignment's validity.

The applicant tenant sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent landlord from re-entering the commercial premises or interfering with its possession.

The landlord alleged the tenant was in breach of the lease due to unpaid additional rent and had previously locked the tenant out.

The court found inconsistencies in the landlord's claims regarding the amounts owed and whether a notice to renew the lease was received.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court concluded there was a serious issue to be tried, the tenant would suffer irreparable business harm if evicted, and the balance of convenience favoured the tenant.

The injunction was granted and costs were awarded to the tenant.

The defendants sought costs of two motions on a partial indemnity scale against the plaintiff, and also sought costs personally against the plaintiff's former legal counsel under Rule 57.07(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court awarded costs to the defendants against the plaintiff, finding the amounts claimed reasonable.

However, the court dismissed the claim for costs against the plaintiff's former lawyers, finding their conduct did not meet the high threshold for personal liability.

The defendants were ordered to pay $1,500 in costs to the plaintiff's former lawyers for successfully defending the claim against them.

The plaintiff commenced a civil action against his estranged spouse and her family members, claiming damages for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy relating to the alleged concealment and sale of jointly owned marital assets.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim, arguing the claims were disguised attempts to seek an equalization payment and must be brought in Family Court.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to transfer the action to an existing Family Court proceeding.

The court agreed with the defendants, finding that the claims were predicated on an entitlement to an equalization payment under the Family Law Act and constituted an abuse of process in civil court.

The court struck the statement of claim and dismissed the plaintiff's motion to transfer, noting the plaintiff must seek leave to add parties in the Family Court proceeding.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order granting damages to the respondents for breach of an oral agreement regarding the sale and installation of Shaw Cable packages in Ontario.

The appellants also sought leave to appeal a full indemnity costs award of $144,991.

The motion judge found that the appellants breached the agreement, misappropriated funds, and owed monies pursuant to loans.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred in finding the agreement was not a joint venture, that they breached it, that it was not varied, that one appellant dissipated assets, and that judgment was awarded to a non-party.

The Court of Appeal upheld most findings but varied the judgment to remove a non-party from the damage award.

The court upheld the full indemnity costs award, finding the appellants' conduct—including moving funds out of the country and fabricating evidence—warranted such an award.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Barrie to Toronto under Rule 13.1.02.

The plaintiff, who sought an interest in a Toronto property based on renovations he performed, opposed the motion.

The court applied a holistic balancing of the factors under Rule 13.1.02 and found that the interests of justice required the transfer, as the property and the defendants were located in Toronto, and the plaintiff resided a similar distance from both venues.

The motion was granted.

This costs endorsement followed successful summary judgment motions by the Bachly Defendants, the Township of Oro-Medonte, and the third party W.R. Hodgson, dismissing the plaintiffs' grading claims and the Bachly Defendants' third-party claim against Hodgson.

The court assessed the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs sought by the successful parties against the plaintiffs.

It determined that the plaintiffs were liable for the costs of the Bachly Defendants and the Township, and also for the third party Hodgson's costs, applying principles that allow for third-party costs against an unsuccessful plaintiff when the third-party proceedings were a natural and inevitable consequence of the plaintiff's action.

The court fixed specific amounts for partial indemnity costs for each successful party.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants regarding the sale of a property, alleging a risk of asset dissipation.

The motion was adjourned to allow the plaintiffs to address concerns about damages and the legitimacy of the defendants' new property purchase.

After receiving satisfactory answers, the plaintiffs decided not to proceed with the injunction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiffs had a reasonable basis to bring it initially, but the defendants' uncooperative conduct unnecessarily increased costs.

Despite the defendants winning the dismissal of the injunction, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs due to the defendants' evasiveness and their counsel's aggressive and unhelpful responses to reasonable inquiries.

The plaintiffs brought claims for lot grade deficiencies against the defendants (Bachly Investments Inc., 411931 Ontario Ltd. o/a Heights of Moonstone, The Township of Oro-Medonte) and a third party claim was brought by the Bachly Defendants against W.R. Hodgson.

The defendants and third party brought summary judgment motions to dismiss these claims, primarily arguing they were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and that there was no evidence of professional negligence against Hodgson.

The court granted the summary judgment motions, finding that the plaintiffs' grading claims were statute-barred as they knew or ought to have known of the issues by summer/fall 2010, and that the plaintiffs failed to provide expert evidence establishing a breach of standard of care or causation against Hodgson.

The court also found that a prior release only covered a specific driveway issue and not the broader grading claims.

The Moving Parties, Net Connect Installations Inc., ICT North Inc., Wayne LaPlante, and Charleen Wunderlich, sought full indemnity costs against the Responding Parties, Mobile Zone Inc., Mohammad Shahzad, Swati Damle, and Systec Communications Inc., following their complete success on a motion for summary judgment.

The court found the Responding Parties engaged in egregious conduct, including fraudulent depletion of funds, fabrication of documents, dissipation of assets despite a Mareva Injunction, and delaying tactics.

Citing principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court determined that this was a rare case warranting full indemnity costs to indemnify the successful litigants and deter inappropriate behaviour.

The Moving Parties were awarded $144,991.11 in full indemnity costs, jointly and severally.