David Sloan

The applicant sought to oppose the confirmation of an Assessment Officer's report regarding a solicitor's bill for a real estate transaction.

The court found that the Assessment Officer's conduct, including drawing adverse inferences from the applicant's non-attendance (an elderly client represented by counsel) and unduly limiting cross-examination, amounted to a denial of natural justice.

The court set aside the Assessment Officer's report, dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, and substituted its own assessment of the solicitor's fees based on a quantum meruit analysis, significantly reducing the original bill and ordering a refund with pre-judgment interest and costs.

Following a successful motion staying an Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction arising from injuries sustained during an ATV excursion in Mexico, the defendant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $85,000.

The court considered the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, access to justice, and the financial circumstances of the unsuccessful parties.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument that a Rule 49 offer triggered presumptive costs consequences, finding the offer lacked meaningful compromise and amounted to an invitation to capitulate.

Given the relatively straightforward half‑day jurisdiction motion, the unsettled legal context before the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Van Breda, and the plaintiffs’ limited financial means, the court reduced the costs significantly.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In bankruptcy proceedings involving several related entities operating a Ponzi scheme, a creditor sought authorization under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to prosecute preference actions after the trustee failed to proceed due to lack of funds.

Another creditor opposed the request and sought its own assignment as a secured creditor, arguing entitlement to priority in any recovered proceeds.

The court held that s. 38 allows a creditor to pursue estate claims where the trustee refuses or neglects to act and that the opposing creditor, as a potential defendant in the preference action and lacking security over the proceeds recovered from third parties, was not entitled to the assignment.

The court also rejected arguments that a prior decision regarding secured creditor rights over recovered collateral applied to preference recoveries paid into third‑party accounts.

Authorization was granted to the moving creditor to pursue the preference actions at its own expense and risk.