Gerald E. Taylor

Following a prior ruling that the defendants incorporated a company to defeat enforcement of a judgment obtained by the plaintiff, the court addressed costs of the motion.

The evidence established that the defendants collaborated to divert income through a corporation to prevent garnishment and frustrate the plaintiff’s efforts to enforce her judgment arising from fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court found the defendants’ conduct akin to fraud and held that substantial indemnity costs were warranted.

In the absence of responding submissions from the defendants, the court reviewed the claimed fees and disbursements and fixed costs.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded jointly against both defendants.

A judgment creditor brought a motion alleging that the debtor incorporated a company and directed his earnings to it in order to defeat enforcement of a judgment exceeding $415,000.

The court examined the debtor’s arrangement under the Assignments and Preferences Act and Rule 60.08(16) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Evidence showed that the corporation was created after judgment and that the debtor’s spouse became the sole shareholder while the debtor continued performing the same services, with the admitted purpose of prioritizing repayment to the spouse over the creditor.

The court held that the arrangement constituted an improper preference intended to hinder the creditor.

The garnishee was ordered to honour the notice of garnishment by paying amounts owing to the debtor to the sheriff, though the court declined to find the debtor in contempt.

Following a two‑day family law trial involving disputes over income for support purposes, child and spousal support, section 7 expenses, equalization of net family property, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondent was largely successful at trial and had served an Offer to Settle that the court found was at least as favourable to the applicant as the ultimate trial outcome.

Applying the principles governing costs consequences of offers to settle, the court held that the respondent was entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

However, costs related to the case conference and settlement conference were excluded.

The court fixed total costs payable at $12,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable forthwith.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing a negligence claim on the basis that it was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The claim arose from an aborted real estate transaction where the plaintiff alleged that the drafting of a price allocation clause in an agreement of purchase and sale constituted solicitor’s negligence.

The court considered the discoverability provisions in s. 5 of the Act and whether a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s circumstances ought to have known of the potential claim earlier.

The court held that the plaintiff was put on notice of the potential drafting issue no later than the delivery of a statement of defence in related litigation in February 2005.

Because the action was commenced more than two years after that date, the claim was statute‑barred.