Edward Charles Conway

This decision addresses a motion for summary judgment brought by three defendants seeking indemnification from Luc Corbeil and the Corbeil Family Trust in relation to a loan and indemnity agreement.

The court found that the moving parties did not provide the personal guarantees required to trigger the indemnity, and that the Corbeil Family Trust was not a party to the relevant agreements.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the responding parties.

The Plaintiffs, having succeeded on a motion for partial summary judgment, sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis.

The Defendants failed to file responding materials to either the summary judgment motion or the costs submissions, and had previously failed to comply with court-imposed terms.

The Plaintiffs argued for full indemnity costs due to the Defendants' failure to concede a clear claim and alleged fraud.

The court, applying Rule 57.01, found insufficient evidence of fraud but sanctioned the Defendants for their litigation conduct, including forcing the motion and delaying the matter.

The court fixed the Plaintiffs' all-inclusive costs at $20,000, reducing the requested amount due to unrecoverable legal research and the perceived lack of justification for two counsel.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the respondent (N.) was entirely successful.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $99,500, reflecting a reduction from actual time incurred.

The appellant (F.) argued for each party to bear their own costs or for a reduced award, citing excessiveness and limited means.

The Court of Appeal found no special circumstances to warrant either full indemnity costs or no costs, ordering the appellant to pay the respondent $50,000 in all-inclusive costs, consistent with costs following the result and reasonable expectations.

The applicant father sought to re-open an already decided appeal based on new text message evidence from the respondent mother, which he argued undermined her previous narrative regarding their child's residency in Dubai.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the application, reiterating that re-opening an appeal is a rare event reserved for cases of "very serious injustice." The court found the new evidence irrelevant to its original decision, which focused on the need to respect a U.K. Consent Custody Order and for the father to pursue the matter in the U.K. first, rather than making credibility findings.

Costs were awarded against the father.

The father brought an application under s. 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) seeking the return of their child to Dubai, claiming wrongful retention in Ontario.

The application judge ordered the child's return to Dubai, erroneously applying the Hague Convention framework despite the UAE not being a signatory.

The Court of Appeal found this was an error, as s. 40 CLRA is distinct from the Hague Convention, particularly regarding the concept of "habitual residence" and the court's broad discretionary powers.

The appeal was allowed, the lower order set aside, and the father's application stayed on condition he commence proceedings in the UK, where a prior consent custody order existed.

The Applicant's motion was heard on February 26, 2019, where he withdrew several claims including supervised access, sale of the matrimonial home, and spousal support.

The motion proceeded on three issues: an advance on an equalization payment, an amendment to a restraining order, and retrieval of personal belongings.

The Respondent was largely successful on the equalization payment, success was divided on the restraining order, and the Applicant was technically successful on retrieving belongings (though unopposed).

The court found the Respondent to be the more successful party on the motion and awarded costs of $17,500, inclusive of HST, to the Respondent.

This decision considered the Applicant's unreasonable litigation conduct, including late withdrawal of claims and obtaining a premature return date for the motion, which increased costs and delayed access to justice.

The applicant brought a motion to strike evidence from the respondent's affidavit, alleging mediation/settlement privilege and non-compliance with the Family Law Rules.

The evidence related to an alleged separation agreement concerning spousal support waiver and share division.

The court ruled that the existence and enforceability of such an agreement are trial issues, not to be determined on interim motions for spousal support or disclosure.

The respondent was ordered to remove privileged and non-compliant materials and to confine his evidence for the substantive motions to whether the applicant has established a prima facie case that no enforceable agreement exists.

The applicants sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to reverse actions taken by the respondents and a secured creditor, including the seizure of shares, removal of directors, and termination of employment, alleging an invalid notice of default and oppression.

The court granted the injunction, finding the applicants established a prima facie case that the default notice was invalid, the shareholders' resolutions were null and void, and that the respondents conspired with the secured creditor to circumvent a unanimous shareholder agreement.

The court also found irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo, reinstating the applicants to their positions and setting aside the impugned acts.

Following a trial that determined the validity of a separation agreement, the court addressed costs.

The self-represented applicant sought full indemnity for all action costs, totaling $14,684.00.

The respondent argued for costs limited to the trial of the issue, suggesting $2,582.00.

The court awarded the applicant $3,000.00, inclusive of HST, for the costs related specifically to the trial of the issue, payable by the respondent within 90 days, noting that other costs could be sought in the overall resolution of the proceeding.

This trial determined the validity of a separation agreement signed by the parties on July 30, 2012.

The respondent sought to set aside the agreement, alleging lack of signature, improper witnessing, unfairness due to non-disclosure and overvaluation of assets, and undue influence.

The applicant relied on the agreement, asserting full financial disclosure and a fair process.

The court found the agreement valid, signed, and properly witnessed, noting the respondent's admission of signature and the witness's confirmation.

The respondent failed to establish non-disclosure, unfairness, or undue influence.

The court emphasized the policy of enforcing fairly negotiated "kitchen table" agreements where parties have openly exchanged information, even without legal counsel, unless there is clear evidence of improvidence or power imbalance.

The separation agreement was declared valid, and the parties were directed to resume their settlement conference for remaining issues.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a further and better affidavit of documents and various discovery-related remedies in an action arising from injuries allegedly sustained when a wheelchair user drove over concealed stairs in a municipal underpass.

The plaintiffs alleged the municipality failed to conduct adequate searches and failed to produce relevant construction and email records concerning the redesign that replaced a ramp with stairs.

The court found the municipality was technically non‑compliant with documentary disclosure obligations under Rule 30 but held that the plaintiff’s motion was disproportionate and unnecessarily combative.

The court ordered targeted additional searches and an affidavit describing the results but declined to grant broader discovery relief or sanctions.

No costs were awarded and the litigation timetable was reset.