Colin E. Wright

The respondent Yelka Kacin sought $10,000 in costs after successfully moving for directions and appointment of an estate trustee.

The applicant Martina Kacin agreed to costs but argued the quantum was excessive.

The court, applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, found the respondent's counsel's billings largely reasonable, reducing "argument" hours from 12 to 6.

The court awarded fixed costs of $9,200, with $5,000 payable by the applicant within 30 days and the remaining $4,200 to be deducted from the applicant's share of the estate.

This motion sought directions to advance an estate matter concerning a lost will.

The applicant, a daughter of the deceased, sought to probate a copy of a 2011 will naming her as sole beneficiary.

The respondents, the deceased's other two children, opposed, relying on the presumption that the lost original will was destroyed with intent to revoke.

The court was asked to determine the issues for a merits hearing, whether an Estate Trustee should be appointed, and the process for document production.

The court found that the key issues for the merits hearing were tracing possession of the will and rebutting the presumption of destruction.

It ordered the appointment of an independent Estate Trustee during litigation and mediator, citing family conflict and the need for neutral management of the estate and productions.

The court also established a specific, managed process for document production, declining the applicant's request for broad, blanket orders.

An appeal from a trial judgment concerning a construction contract dispute.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's findings regarding responsibility for drywall deficiencies and the labour rate credited to the appellant.

The appellate court found the trial judge's determination that the appellant assumed responsibility for drywall installed by third parties was fully supported by evidence.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the labour rate issue.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

This ruling addresses the costs of a default judgment motion that voided a fraudulent conveyance.

The plaintiffs, Kent Dowsley and two law firms, sought substantial indemnity costs against the defendants for their conduct, including a phantom appeal and the fraudulent transfer of property to evade a prior costs award.

The court found the defendants' actions deserving of sanction and awarded substantial indemnity costs to Kent Dowsley, but not to the law firms, as the original costs award was to Dowsley, and there was no lis between the law firms and the Powells.

The total costs awarded to Dowsley were fixed at $15,000, a downward adjustment from the claimed amount due to proportionality.