Emily G. Villeneuve

Following a trial regarding adverse possession where the respondents were completely successful, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs based on offers to settle, while the applicants argued the case was novel and no costs should be awarded.

The court rejected the applicants' argument, finding the case was a classic adverse possession dispute.

The court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs fixed at $53,605.26, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The Applicants sought a declaration of ownership over a portion of a shed straddling a property line, claiming adverse possession.

The Respondents, and their predecessors in title, had openly, continuously, and exclusively possessed and renovated the shed since at least 1990, effectively excluding the true owner.

The court found that the Respondents and their predecessors had acquired the rear portion of the shed (Part 1 on Plan 15R-10725) through adverse possession by 2000.

Additionally, the court found that the Applicants had acquired an overhanging roof of a commercial shed (Part 3 on Plan 15R-10725) on the Residential Property through adverse possession.

The appellants appealed an order declaring a family trust invalid and vesting its assets in the respondent Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeals, and the alleged trustee of the trust brought a cross-motion.

The Court of Appeal found significant irregularities regarding the notice provided for the original hearing, noting that the hearing proceeded in the absence of the undischarged bankrupt and any representative of the trust.

The court set aside the original order and remitted the matter for a new hearing in the Superior Court of Justice to ensure procedural fairness.

On the return of a civil contempt motion, the plaintiff sought incarceration after the defendant failed to purge an earlier contempt finding by providing complete answers to undertakings.

The court found the defendant continued to mislead the court through repackaged, redacted, and unreliable documents and had not purged his contempt.

Applying the established principles governing civil contempt sentencing, the court held that a further custodial sanction was unnecessary given the prior striking of the defence, partial judgment, and earlier costs award.

The court instead imposed a $7,500 fine, authorized further tracing steps through signed authorizations, and awarded substantial indemnity costs of $12,000.

Following a finding of contempt and a motion to strike the defence, the successful party sought full indemnity costs exceeding $67,000.

The court considered the aggravating factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the conduct of the responding party, including findings that the responding party had deliberately misled the court and bankruptcy officials.

The court held that the contempt finding justified costs on a higher scale, namely substantial indemnity.

However, the court reduced the amount claimed to account for prior cost awards and some duplication related to a previous motion to lift a stay of proceedings.

Costs were fixed at $50,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.