Eugenia (Gina) Papageorgiou

The court awarded the Applicants partial indemnity costs in the amount of $88,743.94 after finding that the Respondent developer was not entitled to charge certain adjustment amounts on closing under the agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found the Developer's conduct increased costs but did not rise to the level warranting substantial indemnity.

The decision reviews the appropriate scale and quantum of costs, referencing the Developer's failure to provide information and the resulting bifurcation of the proceeding.

The court considered a motion by the Applicants, estate trustees under a will, seeking to revoke a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee Without a Will granted to the Respondent, Denise Mayers, and for various injunctive and preservation orders.

The court found that Denise had fraudulently obtained the certificate despite knowing of the existence of a will, and granted most of the relief sought, including a Mareva injunction, a certificate of pending litigation over certain property, and a preservation order.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs against Denise due to her conduct.

The court considered a request by the Toronto Police Service Board and Detective Constable Matthew Mungal to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The action, brought by J. Craig Anderson as litigation guardian for his son, alleged failures by the Toronto District School Board and others to accommodate the minor plaintiff’s disabilities and respond to bullying and misconduct.

The court declined to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01, finding the claim was bona fide and did not exhibit the hallmarks of a frivolous or vexatious proceeding.

The court emphasized the importance of access to justice for self-represented litigants and directed the parties to attend a case conference.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate disposition of costs following the granting of an interlocutory proprietary injunction in a commercial dispute involving $16 million advanced by the applicants to the respondents.

The court considers whether costs should be awarded immediately or in the cause, referencing relevant case law and legal commentary.

Ultimately, the court orders that costs be in the cause, given the expedited hearing and the nature of the proceedings.

The court granted default judgment in favour of Aird & Berlis LLP against Spotlight Development Inc. and Shahrzad Larjani (a.k.a.

Sherry Larjani) for unpaid legal fees.

The decision addresses the consequences of being noted in default, the test for default judgment, and the assessment of damages, costs, and interest.

The court found the fees reasonable and awarded partial indemnity costs and interest at the statutory rate.

The court considered an application by Bob Alan Barker to remove his sister, Catherine Elizabeth Barker, as Estate Trustee of their late brother John Joseph Barker’s estate, and to disqualify her from receiving a share of the estate due to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and misappropriation.

The decision addresses requests for production of financial records, including Catherine’s line of credit and her mother’s bank accounts, and analyzes inconsistencies in Catherine’s explanations regarding the handling of estate assets, the sale of a condominium, and life insurance proceeds.

The court granted some of the requested orders, including production of specific financial documents and an examination under oath, and awarded costs personally against Catherine.

This costs endorsement addresses the plaintiff’s entitlement to costs following a successful motion for exemption from mandatory mediation and related matters.

The court reviews the scale and quantum of costs, the relevance of expert evidence, the impact of funding by the Court Challenges Project, and the apportionment of costs between motions.

The court ultimately awards costs to the plaintiff, finding them reasonable and incidental to the proceeding.

The court granted the applicant's motion for partition and sale of a jointly owned property, ordering that 50% of the proceeds be released to the applicant and that she be reimbursed for funeral and carrying costs.

The respondents' objections, including claims of loans and entitlement to a greater share, were rejected due to lack of evidence and legal standing.

The court found the applicant was entitled to her share as a 50% title owner, and the respondents' claims, if any, would be against the estate, not the applicant's share.

This costs endorsement addresses the aftermath of a motion to amend a statement of claim and related motions to strike in a commercial dispute.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend and dismissed the defendants' motion to strike, with the defendants voluntarily withdrawing an allegation of similar fact evidence.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court awarded only partial indemnity costs, reduced to $10,000, due to the plaintiffs' own conduct and drafting issues that contributed to the need for the motions and adjournments.

The Applicants, commercial landlords, sought a permanent injunction against the Developer and the Church regarding the use of a right-of-way (ROW) over a laneway behind their properties.

The court found that the Developer’s construction activities, including staging, parking, and storage, substantially interfered with the Applicants’ use of the ROW, particularly for parking and access by tenants and customers.

The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Developer from obstructing the laneway and from allowing its workers to park directly behind the Applicants’ units, but declined to order removal of all construction equipment due to the stage of construction and delay in seeking relief.

The applicants, purchasers of units in a townhouse complex, sought a declaration that the developer was not entitled to charge them certain adjustment amounts on closing under their agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found that the developer was not entitled to pass on utility infrastructure costs paid to contractors, trades, and other third parties, but only those paid to the municipality or utility service providers, and for meter installation.

The court also found the developer was not entitled to charge $800 for an extension of the closing date.

The application was granted, and a reference on damages was directed.

The court dismissed Zenith’s appeal of an arbitrator’s decision finding it the priority insurer for accident benefits under Ontario’s Insurance Act.

The decision clarifies that an insurer licensed in Ontario is subject to Ontario’s priority rules for accidents occurring in Ontario, even if the policy was issued elsewhere, due to reciprocal legislative provisions.

The court distinguished Travelers v. CAA and similar cases, emphasizing that territorial overreach does not occur where the accident is in Ontario and the insurer is licensed in Ontario.

The court also addressed the interplay between Ontario and Alberta insurance legislation and the effect of reciprocal undertakings and licensing conditions.

The court determined the appropriate prejudgment and post-judgment interest rates following an award of damages and punitive damages to the plaintiff for the improper registration of a certificate of pending litigation.

The court found that prejudgment interest should run from the date the certificate was registered, calculated at an average rate reflecting market changes, and that post-judgment interest applies to all amounts owing under the order, including costs.

The court found Benabdallah Chouchaoui in contempt of a permanent injunction order prohibiting him and his company from holding out as engineers, engaging in the practice of professional engineering, or using an engineering seal without proper authorization under the Professional Engineers Act.

The decision details a pattern of non-compliance, including misuse of another engineer’s seal, failure to comply with court-ordered procedures, and evasive conduct.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the applicant and scheduled a sentencing hearing.

The court dismissed the respondents’ motion to stay an application brought by Halton Healthcare Services Corporation, finding that there was no binding agreement to arbitrate, that the respondents had taken substantive steps in the litigation, and that they had moved with undue delay in seeking a stay.

The decision interprets the requirements for a stay under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and applies recent appellate and Supreme Court authority on the prerequisites for a stay and the effect of participation in litigation.

The decision concerns an interlocutory injunction sought by Mondee, Inc. and related companies against former employees and their new employer, Voyzant Inc., after a mass departure of staff and alleged misappropriation of confidential information.

The court grants an injunction requiring the return and destruction of Mondee’s confidential information taken by a departing employee, but declines to restrain the defendants from soliciting or dealing with certain customers, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm and that damages would be quantifiable.

The ruling provides a detailed analysis of the legal tests for interlocutory injunctions in the context of confidential business information and fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal and a motion for contempt against Susan Stevens for breaching court orders related to the disposition of a recreational vehicle (RV) subject to a Mareva injunction.

The court found that the orders were clear and unequivocal, that Ms. Stevens had actual knowledge of them, and that she intentionally breached them by selling the RV.

The court found Ms. Stevens in contempt, ordered her to provide documentation and pay over the proceeds, and adjourned the penalty phase to allow her an opportunity to purge her contempt.

This ruling addresses requested changes to the jury charge in a medical negligence trial concerning the standard of care and the admissibility and weight of evidence regarding minority medical practice, usual practice, and the distinction between buttock numbness and saddle anaesthesia.

The court reviews the law on minority practice, the role of expert evidence, and the proper approach to weighing conflicting testimony, ultimately declining to make certain amendments requested by the defendant and clarifying the law for the jury.

This decision addresses the applications of various organizations to intervene in a constitutional challenge regarding migrant access to health care in Canada.

The court grants leave to several coalitions and organizations to intervene as friends of the court, with some permitted to review productions and attend discovery.

The court also addresses the scope of the deemed undertaking rule, the discretion to relieve intervenors from costs, and the exemption of the matter from mandatory mediation.

The ruling clarifies the criteria for intervention, the rights of intervenors, and the balancing of public interest and litigation efficiency.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, sought reconsideration of a prior decision granting the Migrant Worker Coalition leave to intervene as a friend of the court.

Canada argued that the court's initial decision was based on the erroneous factual assumption that the deceased plaintiff had entered Canada on an authorized work permit, when she had actually entered as a visitor and overstayed.

Justice Papageorgiou amended the factual error in the reasons but maintained the decision to grant the Coalition intervenor status.

The court concluded that the deceased's precarious situation of working without status after her visitor visa expired remained highly analogous to the precarious circumstances and healthcare access challenges faced by migrant workers.