C. Tonks

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims regarding a corporate estate freeze and a vendor take-back mortgage distribution, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants, finding that the individual plaintiff advanced frivolous claims and made unfounded allegations of fraud against various parties, including counsel.

The court rejected the plaintiff's requests to set off unpaid dividends, include the estate in the costs liability, or reduce the award significantly.

The individual plaintiff was ordered to personally pay $150,080.01 in costs.

The plaintiff, in her personal capacity and as an estate trustee, brought an action against her brothers and several family corporations, alleging oppression, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty regarding a 2002 estate freeze and the distribution of mortgage proceeds.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court found that the estate freeze was validly implemented and that the distribution of the mortgage proceeds was a reasonable business decision.

The court dismissed the majority of the plaintiff's claims, finding no evidence of oppression, but ordered the corporate defendants to hold annual shareholder meetings, appoint an auditor, and retain independent counsel.

The defendants (Smith Defendants) brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel (McLean) due to an alleged conflict of interest and to prevent the use of allegedly privileged documents.

The plaintiffs (Milicevic/Mazzone) brought cross-motions to remove the defendants' counsel (Rapley), to amend their pleadings, and for orders regarding document production and privilege.

The court dismissed both motions to remove counsel, finding no compelling reason to interfere with the parties' choice of counsel and noting the tactical nature of the motions.

The court also ruled on the privilege of various documents, finding that joint retainer documents were not privileged as between the joint clients, and permitted the plaintiffs to amend their cross-claim in the Toronto action while denying the withdrawal of their indemnity claim in the Brampton action.

The plaintiff brought an action alleging her daughter fraudulently transferred title of a jointly owned property into her own name and subsequently encumbered it with multiple mortgages.

One of the mortgagees brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against it, and the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment against the mortgagees and default judgment against her daughter.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that the 'full appreciation' test could not be met on the incomplete documentary record, and that a trial was necessary to determine whether the plaintiff had an opportunity to avoid the fraud and to allocate the loss among the competing parties under the theory of deferred indefeasibility.