Edward L. Burlew

In an estate dispute involving multiple estate trustees, the court addressed a costs issue following the dismissal of an application against a respondent who had been drawn into the litigation as the deceased’s common-law spouse and co-owner of the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs after being unnecessarily involved in the dispute among the estate trustees.

The court found that the respondent had efficiently obtained relief through a prior motion for sale of the property and should not have been required to participate further in the application.

Although the applicants’ conduct contributed to unnecessary litigation steps, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 all-inclusive payable by the applicants.

The appellant brought a summary conviction appeal from a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice declining jurisdiction to hear a reference under s. 74 of the Firearms Act concerning an alleged revocation of a firearm registration certificate.

The lower court determined that a letter from the Registrar advising that a rifle’s bull‑pup stock was a prohibited device did not constitute a revocation.

The appellant argued that the court erred by deciding jurisdiction without permitting him to call evidence, contrary to s. 75(2) of the Act, thereby breaching procedural fairness.

The Superior Court held that once the hearing commenced the statute required the judge to hear all relevant evidence from both parties.

Because the lower court made factual findings based only on the Registrar’s evidence while refusing the appellant’s witnesses, the process violated natural justice and constituted an error of law.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing before a different judge.