Gillian Fournie

Following a reference regarding a partnership dispute and an application for partition and sale, the applicant sought costs.

The court determined that the costs of the partition application benefited all partners and ordered them paid from the partnership's net sale proceeds on a partial indemnity basis.

For the reference, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs against one respondent and substantial indemnity costs against the other respondent from the date of an unaccepted offer to settle.

The applicant and respondents were equal partners in a mixed-use commercial and residential property.

Following a court-ordered sale of the property, a reference was held to conduct an accounting of expenses and profits to determine the distribution of the net sale proceeds.

The court determined the partners' respective liabilities for rental arrears, renovation cost overruns, ongoing property expenses paid by the applicant, and equipment removal costs.

Applying the Partnership Act, the court found that the renovation and property expenses were partnership debts to be shared equally, while specific rental arrears and equipment removal costs were personal to the respective respondents.

The net proceeds of $396,824.51 were distributed accordingly, with the applicant receiving the majority share due to her significant financial contributions to the property's expenses.

Following the death of their mother, two sisters engaged in protracted and acrimonious estate litigation involving allegations of fraud and undue influence.

The parties eventually settled all substantive issues at mediation, agreeing to divide the estate equally, but left the issue of costs to be determined by the court.

The court found that the plaintiff had unreasonably escalated the litigation and ignored reasonable settlement offers.

Finding exceptional circumstances that justified a costs award despite the settlement, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $75,000 in costs to the defendant.

In an addendum to previous reasons ordering a buyout of certain members of a corporation, the court addressed disputed terms of the buyout order.

The court determined that the boundaries of severed and retained parcels did not require further input, as the total property value would dictate payouts.

The court also ruled that costs, including commissions, closing costs, and capital gains taxes related to the sale of severed parcels, must be borne by the departing members who benefit from those sales.

A request for interim distributions was denied due to practical uncertainties and tax liabilities.

The Lash family owned a 30-acre cottage property through a non-profit corporation, Lash Point Association Corp. (LPAC).

A dispute arose between family members who wanted to sell their interests and leave (the leave camp) and those who wanted to keep the property for future generations (the remain camp).

The leave camp applied to wind up the corporation and sell the entire property, while the remain camp proposed a court-ordered buyout of the departing members funded by the sale of severed parcels.

The court dismissed the winding up application, finding that a buyout was a viable alternative that would allow departing members to receive fair market value while preserving the corporation's purpose for the remaining members.

The court appointed a receiver to implement the buyout process.

Motion seeking approval of Minutes of Settlement under Rule 7.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a mentally incapable adult and for judgment implementing the settlement terms between her three sons.

The settlement arose from mediation resolving disputes concerning a family trust and a prior transfer of Spanish real property.

A dispute later arose regarding the wording of an acknowledgement required by the settlement, leading one party to withdraw a prior approval motion and threaten to resile from the agreement.

The court found the refusal to accept the original wording and withdrawal of the approval motion unreasonable, concluding it necessitated the moving party’s motion to finalize approval.

The settlement was approved and costs were awarded to the moving party, with part payable personally by the party whose conduct caused the additional proceedings.