D. Schatzker

The plaintiff sought costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale following a motion by the defendants for leave to amend their defence and a cross-motion by the plaintiff to strike paragraphs.

The defendants argued that success was divided and parties should bear their own costs.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful, as every disputed paragraph was struck in whole or in part, necessitating substantial amendments by the defendants.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $6,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Defence and add a Counterclaim in an action arising from an aborted real estate transaction.

The plaintiff opposed the amendments and brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the pleadings, arguing they were improperly pleaded, irrelevant, or disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court struck references to settlement privilege without leave to amend.

The court also struck the defendants' claims of bad faith and mental distress with leave to amend, finding they lacked sufficient clarity, precision, and material facts to allow the plaintiff to know the case it had to meet.

The applicant sought approval of accounts relating to the guardianship of an incapable person’s property and personal care.

An objector challenged the accounts, alleging unlisted assets, inadequate disclosure, and a failure by the guardian to investigate alleged misappropriation by a prior attorney for property.

The court held that the objector’s allegations were speculative and unsupported by evidence and that the guardian was not obligated to investigate historic allegations absent credible proof, particularly where a court-approved management plan governed the guardianship.

The court also emphasized that objections inconsistent with a previously consented management plan required evidence of new or previously undiscoverable information.

The accounts were approved and the objections dismissed.