FL Myers

Following the vacating of an ex parte order due to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, the respondent sought costs of the motion.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, declining to award a higher scale as the applicant's conduct was not reprehensible.

The court allowed recovery for the value of work performed by the respondent's US counsel in drafting affidavits, noting that while foreign counsel cannot charge legal fees in Ontario, a fair and reasonable amount for the preparation work should be indemnified to avoid a windfall to the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $80,000 all-inclusive.

The parties sought an annulment of their brief civil marriage, which was never consummated due to their sincerely held religious belief that consummation should wait until a religious ceremony.

The religious ceremony was subsequently cancelled.

The court found that a sincerely held religious belief can constitute an 'invincible aversion' to consummation, amounting to an 'incapacity of some kind' under the Annulment of Marriages Act (Ontario).

The uncontested trial was dealt with in writing, and the annulment was granted.

The plaintiff, an acquirer bank, sought an interlocutory mandatory injunction to enforce its contractual right to audit the defendant, a payment operator, after the defendant terminated their agreement and invoked a de-conversion process.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for a mandatory injunction requiring the plaintiff to release funds it had moved from settlement accounts to reserve accounts, alleging breach of trust.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding a strong prima facie case that the audit right survived during de-conversion and that the loss of the right constituted irreparable harm.

The defendant's cross-motion was dismissed as it failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, and there was no basis to find the settlement accounts were trust funds.

The anonymous plaintiffs brought an action and an urgent motion to prohibit the defendant from disclosing text messages they exchanged with her in the defendant's separate wrongful dismissal lawsuit against her former employer.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs improperly commenced the action using pseudonyms without leave, lacked standing to interfere with documentary discovery in another lawsuit, and failed to plead a valid cause of action.

The court emphasized that embarrassment or prejudice to third parties does not override a party's legal obligation to disclose relevant documents in litigation.

Following the dismissal of a guardianship application, the respondents sought costs.

The applicant had abandoned his claims on the eve of the hearing after failing to undermine a court-ordered capacity assessment of his mother.

The court found the applicant's procedural complaints insufficient to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of $100,000 each to his sister and mother on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought leave to proceed with an uncontested trial in writing to assess damages against the respondent for breach of fiduciary duty.

The respondent had previously been held in contempt for failing to pass his accounts and had failed to pay a costs order before passing away.

The court granted the applicant leave to proceed under Rule 57.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, dispensing with the requirement for an order to continue under Rule 11, as the respondent's beneficiaries declined to administer his insolvent estate.

The respondent estate trustee moved for leave to sell the estate's principal asset, a 10-acre homestead, to pay debts and avoid ongoing costs.

The applicant sibling opposed the sale, seeking instead to sever the property into two 5-acre parcels to keep her half in kind, and brought a late cross-motion to appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The court adjourned the cross-motion to ensure a fair evidentiary record and declined to authorize the sale immediately, instead ordering a case conference to establish terms for the applicant to present a fully costed severance plan.

At a case conference in a dependants' relief application, the applicants sought the summary appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The court adjourned the request to allow the responding party proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, noting that the respondent's counsel lacked instructions.

The court ordered the deposit of the will on consent and urged the parties to cooperate to avoid unnecessary costs in a small estate.

The applicant brought an application seeking to remove his sister and mother as attorneys for his parents and to be appointed as his father's guardian.

On the eve of the hearing, the applicant abandoned his challenges to his parents' capacity and powers of attorney, instead seeking declarations regarding financial impropriety and an accounting.

The court dismissed the application, finding that without a challenge to capacity or the powers of attorney, there were no cognizable causes of action remaining and the applicant had no legal basis to compel an accounting or seek abstract declarations.

The applicant brought a motion for the production of third-party medical, financial, and legal records in a will challenge, alleging his late mother lacked testamentary capacity and was unduly influenced by the respondent.

While the applicant's own evidence was largely speculative, the court found that the respondent's cross-examination and a video of the will signing ceremony provided an ample objective basis to meet the evidentiary threshold.

The video showed the mother being coached off-screen, and the respondent's evidence regarding the mother's finances was internally inconsistent and defied common sense.

The motion for production was granted.

The applicants, acting as attorneys under 2022 powers of attorney, sought to invalidate 2023 powers of attorney granted to the respondents (the incapable person's sons) on the basis of incapacity.

At a case conference, the court considered interim arrangements for the incapable person's care and discharge from the hospital.

Finding a strong prima facie case that the 2023 powers of attorney were invalid, the court granted an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the respondents from acting under them, thereby leaving the applicants with exclusive authority to move the incapable person to a private rehabilitation facility pending the final hearing.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to hold the defendant in contempt of court for repeatedly refusing to attend examinations for discovery in breach of multiple court orders.

The court found the defendant in civil contempt, noting his deliberate manipulation of the process and failure to comply despite prior indulgences.

The defendant was sentenced to 60 days of incarceration, a $10,000 fine, and ordered to pay $170,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff lawyer brought an urgent motion for an interim order prohibiting his landlord from evicting him from his commercial office space at the end of his lease term.

Although the parties had exchanged emails agreeing to a one-year lease extension, the plaintiff declined to rely on that agreement, seeking instead to stay for only four months due to a breakdown in the relationship.

The court dismissed the request for interim relief, finding that without asserting the extended lease, the plaintiff had no legal basis to remain in the premises and therefore failed to establish a serious issue to be tried.

The applicant sought costs against the self-represented respondents who unsuccessfully opposed its application for a declaration of adverse possession over a laneway.

The respondents, descendants of the original 1824 owner, opposed the application expecting compensation from the developer.

The court found that the respondents' opposition caused the applicant to incur incremental costs, as the application would have otherwise proceeded in writing.

The court rejected the respondents' arguments that their self-represented status or financial circumstances should shield them from a costs award.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $25,000.

The Law Society of Ontario brought an ex parte motion for a search and seizure order under s. 49.10 of the Law Society Act to seize the respondent lawyer's electronic devices.

The Law Society was investigating allegations of sexual harassment and sought to access the respondent's social media communications.

The court found reasonable grounds that the devices contained relevant evidence and that the order was necessary due to urgency and the respondent's refusal to cooperate.

The motion was granted and the file was temporarily sealed to protect the investigation.

The applicant tenant applied for an order referring disputes over operating costs under three commercial leases to an independent professional consultant for expert determination, as provided in the leases.

The respondent landlord argued the disputes involved legal interpretation and should be resolved by the court.

The court granted the application, finding that the expert determination clause was broad enough to encompass the disputes, which involved practical questions of lease interpretation and allocation of expenses.

The applicants sought an order requiring the federal government to regulate Twitter to prevent it from refusing to sell them 'promoted tweets' for their political documentary film.

The Attorney General moved to dismiss the application for failing to state a reasonable cause of action.

The court applied the Supreme Court of Canada's test for positive rights under section 2(b) of the Charter, finding that the applicants were not effectively precluded from meaningful expression, as they could still use regular tweets and other advertising mediums.

The court also held that the relief sought was not justiciable, as it would require the court to set legislative priorities.

The motion was granted and the application was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued her former lawyer for negligence regarding a construction contract.

The plaintiff's new lawyer accepted an offer to settle the action for a dismissal without costs.

The plaintiff subsequently filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person and claimed she never instructed her lawyer to settle.

The defendant moved to enforce the settlement under Rule 49.09.

The court granted the motion, finding no basis to refuse enforcement, as the agreement was clear and entered into by counsel with ostensible authority.

The applicant sought a declaration of ownership over a narrow laneway behind its property, which remained registered in the name of an individual who purchased it in 1824.

The respondents, descendants of the original owner, opposed the application.

The court found that the applicant's predecessors in title had exercised open, exclusive, continuous, and peaceable possession of the laneway for over 75 years, effectively excluding the original owner and his heirs.

The court granted the declaration of possessory title in favour of the applicant.

The applicants brought a Charter challenge against the public funding of Roman Catholic separate schools for non-Catholic students and high school students in Ontario.

The respondent moved to strike the application under Rule 21.01.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Supreme Court of Canada had already determined these issues in the Reference re Bill 30 decision, which held that minority education rights under section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 are immune from Charter scrutiny.

The court concluded there was no new legal issue or fundamental change in circumstances that would allow it to depart from binding precedent, rendering the application doomed to fail.