Denyse Boulet

Application by a corporate owner of adjacent property claiming entitlement to a disputed strip of land used as a driveway for over 30 years.

The applicant advanced claims in adverse possession and proprietary estoppel.

The court dismissed the adverse possession claim, finding the applicant could not show that its use of the disputed strip was inconsistent with the respondent's intended use of keeping the land vacant, as required by Court of Appeal authority.

However, the court granted the application on the basis of proprietary estoppel, finding that the respondent's 30-plus years of silence while the applicant and its predecessors used and improved the driveway constituted encouragement, that the applicant detrimentally relied on that silence, and that it was unconscionable for the respondent to erect a fence dividing the driveway without notice or consultation.

The respondent was ordered to remove the fence and repair damaged interlocking brick.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion for security for costs brought by the respondent, Seema Narula, which was dismissed.

The applicant, Farhad Derakhshan, who was self-represented, sought $6,707.00 in costs.

The court awarded Derakhshan $714.30, fixed on a partial indemnity basis, primarily for legal consultation fees and some disbursements, disallowing claims for lost income and unsupported disbursements.

The awarded costs were ordered to be set off against costs Derakhshan owed Narula from a prior unsuccessful motion.

The Crown applied to admit excerpts from a prior costs endorsement by Justice M.A. Penny as evidence in a criminal trial against John D’Souza and Peter D’Gama, who were accused of using a fake judgment bearing Justice Penny's forged signature.

The application sought to use the endorsement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, arguing necessity (judges are not compellable) and reliability.

The court found Justice Penny not compellable to testify due to judicial immunity, as his potential testimony was inextricably intertwined with his judicial function.

The application was allowed in part, admitting factual statements from the endorsement that met threshold reliability and were not overly prejudicial, while excluding passages that reflected Justice Penny's judicial views, opinions, or reasoning, to prevent undue prejudice to the accused.

The respondent, Seema Narula, brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant, Farhad Derakhshan, under Rule 24(13)(4) of the Family Law Rules, alleging his case was a waste of time or a nuisance and he lacked sufficient assets to pay costs.

The court found that while the applicant's self-represented presentation caused delays, it was premature to conclude the case itself was a waste of time or a nuisance.

Furthermore, the court was not satisfied that the applicant lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs, especially considering his claims of impoverishment due to the respondent's actions.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, and the applicant was awarded costs.

This decision addresses costs arising from two motions brought by the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) to set aside Summonses to Witness served by Farhad Derakhshan during a matrimonial trial.

Seema Narula, the respondent in the main trial, supported the AGC's motions.

The court found Derakhshan's conduct unreasonable and in bad faith for refusing to withdraw the improper summonses, which sought confidential taxpayer information and evidence from irrelevant federal employees, despite clear warnings.

Costs were awarded to the AGC on a substantial indemnity basis, with a reduction in claimed hours, and to Narula for counsel attendance.

This decision addresses the costs arising from two unsuccessful motions brought by the self-represented applicant, Farhad Derakhshan, seeking various relief including amending the claim, document production, action consolidation, and property inspection by an appraiser.

The motions were dismissed as wasteful of time and money.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, Seema Narula, at 80% of her counsel's hourly rates, totaling $5,388.70, payable within 30 days.

The court emphasized that cost rules apply equally to self-represented litigants and that the applicant's conduct was unreasonable.

During an ongoing family law trial, the self-represented applicant brought motions seeking to adduce new expert appraisal evidence, add several new parties, obtain further documentary production, and consolidate a Small Claims Court action.

The court dismissed all the motions, finding that the requests were brought far too late and would cause incurable prejudice to the respondent.

The court also noted that several of the requests had already been dismissed by another judge prior to trial and were therefore res judicata.