Gerald E. Langlois

Costs endorsement following a motion in which the applicant was entirely successful.

The court found the motion brought by the responding parties to be ill-advised and held that the successful party was entitled to substantial indemnity costs.

The court ordered one of the respondents to pay the applicant $4,000 in costs on an all‑inclusive basis within 30 days.

Following a motion determining whether the applicant qualified as a spouse under the Succession Law Reform Act, the court addressed costs.

The applicant had been completely successful on the underlying legal issue concerning spousal status.

The court noted the issue was fact-driven but required review of relevant jurisprudence and was important to the parties.

No settlement offers were presented and no party acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

The court fixed costs payable to the successful applicant at $7,892.95 inclusive of HST, payable from the estate.

The applicant sought a determination that she qualified as a “spouse” of the deceased under the Succession Law Reform Act in order to pursue dependant support from the estate.

The respondents, including the deceased’s children and estate, argued that the parties had not cohabited for the statutorily required three‑year period prior to death.

The court reviewed extensive affidavit evidence concerning the duration and nature of the parties’ relationship, including the timing of the applicant’s move into the deceased’s home, financial arrangements, family interactions, and documentary records.

Applying the factors for determining a conjugal relationship articulated in Molodowich v. Penttinen, the court concluded that the parties began continuous cohabitation around May or June 2009.

As the deceased died in August 2012, the statutory three‑year requirement was met, and the applicant qualified as a spouse under s. 57 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

Homeowners commenced an action for damages alleging breach of a construction contract relating to the lifting of a house and installation of a new basement foundation.

The contractor counterclaimed for unpaid amounts relating to the contract and additional work performed as “extras”.

The court held the homeowners acted as builder‑owners responsible for overall project compliance with the Building Code and rejected claims that the contractor guaranteed the structural viability of the project.

While minor breaches of workmanship were found, including damage caused during lowering of the house and incomplete debris removal, the claimed damages were largely excessive.

After accounting for contractual credits and valid charges for additional work, the contractor succeeded on the counterclaim with judgment granted in a set‑off amount.