Gary Flaxbard

This costs endorsement follows a motion brought by House concerning the distribution of insurance proceeds, the application of the equitable doctrine of marshalling, and the garnishment of settlement funds.

The court had previously dismissed House's request for marshalling, ordered pro rata distribution of State Farm funds, and allowed House to garnish 20% of Baird's settlement.

Baird was deemed more successful than House on the garnishment issue and was entitled to costs.

The court awarded Baird $20,000 in partial indemnity costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, but excluded costs for an affiant who did not act as counsel or make submissions.

The parties sought clarification on whether the court's previous costs order, which declined to award costs due to a mixed result on summary judgment motions, also applied to the costs of defending a dismissed counterclaim.

The court issued an addendum clarifying that the previous order applied only to the summary judgment motions and established a timetable for written submissions regarding the costs of defending the counterclaim.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on liability after a five-year-old child was severely injured by a riding lawnmower operated by the defendant neighbour.

The defendant had counterclaimed against the child's parents for negligent supervision.

The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim against the father, who was at work and unaware of the danger.

However, the court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the apportionment of liability between the defendant occupier and the mother, given conflicting evidence on the community standard of care for supervising children playing in neighbouring yards.

The applicant and the respondent separated in 2006.

The respondent died in 2010 before the trial concluded.

The applicant converted her family law claims into a dependant's relief claim under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The estate was insolvent, but the respondent had a $1 million life insurance policy naming his daughters as beneficiaries.

The court found the applicant was a dependant entitled to adequate provision and awarded her a lump sum of $430,000 from the life insurance proceeds, after accounting for equalization, child support, and occupation rent.

The balance of the policy proceeds was ordered to be paid to the daughters.