Danielle Joel

In an addendum to previous reasons ordering a buyout of certain members of a corporation, the court addressed disputed terms of the buyout order.

The court determined that the boundaries of severed and retained parcels did not require further input, as the total property value would dictate payouts.

The court also ruled that costs, including commissions, closing costs, and capital gains taxes related to the sale of severed parcels, must be borne by the departing members who benefit from those sales.

A request for interim distributions was denied due to practical uncertainties and tax liabilities.

The Lash family owned a 30-acre cottage property through a non-profit corporation, Lash Point Association Corp. (LPAC).

A dispute arose between family members who wanted to sell their interests and leave (the leave camp) and those who wanted to keep the property for future generations (the remain camp).

The leave camp applied to wind up the corporation and sell the entire property, while the remain camp proposed a court-ordered buyout of the departing members funded by the sale of severed parcels.

The court dismissed the winding up application, finding that a buyout was a viable alternative that would allow departing members to receive fair market value while preserving the corporation's purpose for the remaining members.

The court appointed a receiver to implement the buyout process.

Following a motion hearing concerning a significant advance payment request in complex estate-related litigation, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying the factors in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered the importance and novelty of the issues and the reasonable expectations of experienced litigants.

The plaintiff was successful and entitled to substantial costs for the motion.

The court also addressed the entitlement of the estate trustee during litigation to costs payable from the estate under a prior order.

A surviving spouse sought an advance equalization payment of $4.5 million from the estate of her deceased husband under the Family Law Act or, alternatively, partial summary judgment.

The motion was opposed by several defendants asserting potential claims against the estate and challenging their standing and the appropriateness of the advance.

The court held that the equalization entitlement between spouses is personal under the Family Law Act and that the defendants were neither proven creditors nor beneficiaries.

Applying the three-part test for advance equalization payments from Laamanen v. Laamanen, the court found a reasonable need for litigation funding, little doubt of entitlement to at least the requested amount, and that granting the advance was just in the circumstances.

Following earlier rulings on a derivative leave motion in estate litigation, the court addressed outstanding procedural directions and the issue of costs for five related motions.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $144,000 for work connected primarily to the derivative issues.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principles discussed in Boucher v. Public Accountants, the court held that the requested amount far exceeded the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful parties for a one‑day motion.

Substantial indemnity costs were denied.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendants jointly and severally at $55,000 inclusive of taxes and interest.

The estate trustee during litigation sought full indemnity costs following a contested passing of accounts in an estate matter.

The objector, a beneficiary, repeatedly failed to particularize objections, disregarded procedural directions, and caused significant delay and inefficiency during the proceedings.

The court found the estate trustee was substantially successful and that most objections were unsupported.

Although full indemnity costs from the estate were appropriate in principle for a passing of accounts, the court held the amount claimed was excessive given the nature of the issues and inefficiencies arising from multiple counsel and staff working on the file.

Costs were therefore reduced to a reasonable amount.