Douglas W. Judson

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim at trial, the successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff conceded that substantial indemnity costs were warranted due to unsuccessful fraud allegations but disputed the quantum and whether the litigation administrator should be personally liable.

The court fixed costs at $45,000 for the Jolicouers and $55,000 for Debra.

The court ordered the litigation administrator to be personally liable for 67% of the costs, representing the portion incurred after the deceased's death when she continued the litigation for her own benefit, with the estate liable for the remaining 33%.

The applicant sought remedies under the Business Corporations Act after discovering the respondent co-director had forged his signature on pandemic relief loans and deposited fraudulent cheques, leaving the corporation in debt.

The respondent admitted to the forgeries.

The court granted judgment for the $35,000 the applicant paid to cover the overdraft, awarded $25,000 in punitive damages, set aside the forged loan agreements and personal guarantees, and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff estate administrator brought an action alleging that the deceased's daughter, acting as power of attorney, fraudulently transferred the deceased's farm properties to another daughter and son-in-law in 1997.

The court found no evidence of fraud or conspiracy, concluding that the deceased had authorized the transfers.

The court also held that any claim for the unpaid balance of the purchase price was barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendants' counterclaim regarding the severance of a joint tenancy was also dismissed.

Gilbert Labine, a criminal lawyer, brought a summary application seeking an injunction against Brian Webster and Pino Demasi, who operate social media sites, alleging defamation and interference with the administration of justice.

The respondents, self-described citizen journalists, reported on court proceedings.

The application was dismissed on procedural grounds, as the court found it was not a proper case for a summary proceeding due to contested material facts, the need for discovery, and issues with admissible evidence.

The court noted that a regular action was the appropriate procedural path for a defamation claim seeking an injunction as primary relief.

No costs were awarded.