Gregory M. Sidlofsky

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion to add two brothers of the defendant to an action for unpaid legal fees.

The firm sought to bind the brothers, as contingent beneficiaries of their mother's estate, to a claim for fees to be paid from the estate upon her death.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed pleading problematic, the brothers' status as beneficiaries uncertain until the mother's death, and noting the firm failed to utilize the appropriate remedy under section 34 of the Solicitors Act.

The appellant appealed an order passing the accounts of the respondent, who acted as Attorney for Property and Estate Trustee for their parents.

The trial judge had awarded the respondent compensation of $129,861.05 and ordered the appellant to personally pay full indemnity costs of $192,000.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge erred in awarding a care and management fee for the Estate Trustee period and in calculating a deduction from the appellant's share of the residue.

The Court also granted leave to appeal the costs order, substituting a blended order requiring the appellant to pay partial indemnity costs of $115,200, with the balance of the respondent's legal costs payable from the estate.

Supplementary reasons regarding costs following two interlocutory motions: the plaintiff's motion for preservation of funds and the defendant's motion for security for costs.

The court found that success was divided on both motions and ordered no costs.

The court also declined the defendant's request to reserve costs to the trial judge, emphasizing the policy objective under Rule 57.03 that costs of contested motions should be determined at the time of the hearing.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for failure to satisfy prior costs orders totaling more than $45,000 and for delay in prosecuting the action.

The plaintiff, through her granddaughter acting under an alleged power of attorney, asserted medical incapacity and financial hardship as reasons for non‑payment and delay.

The court found the evidence supporting impecuniosity and incapacity weak, contradictory, and largely unsupported, noting property transfers to family members and a lengthy history of delay and procedural default.

While recognizing that striking a claim is a drastic remedy, the court held the plaintiff had failed to justify her non‑compliance and lack of progress.

The court granted the plaintiff a final opportunity to pay the outstanding costs and comply with discovery obligations, failing which the defendant could seek dismissal.

In a commercial tenancy dispute arising from lease agreements and a rezoning arrangement for property intended to be used as a hotel, the plaintiff moved under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order preserving funds paid to the defendant.

The defendant brought a cross‑motion seeking security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d), arguing the plaintiff corporation lacked assets in Ontario.

The court held that the $200,000 security deposit constituted a specific fund tied to the litigation and ordered it preserved by payment into court, but declined to extend preservation to advance rent or rezoning contributions, which were characterized as damages claims.

The court also granted the defendant’s motion for security for costs, finding the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario and had not shown a good chance of success to avoid such an order.

The quantum of security for costs was fixed at $15,000 through the end of oral discovery.

Following the release of the court's decision on the appeal, the parties filed written submissions regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal fixed costs in favour of the successful respondent in the amount of $20,000 all inclusive.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action to set aside three inter vivos monetary transfers and a testamentary bequest of Canada Savings Bonds made by his late father to the respondent, his sister.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding sufficient corroborating evidence to rebut the presumptions of resulting trust and undue influence, and that the testamentary gift adeemed when the bonds were placed in a joint account.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the father had donative capacity, was not subject to undue influence, and intended the transfers as gifts.

The Court also found the bonds did not adeem as they were never endorsed by the father and remained registered in his name.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's refusal to appoint her as estate trustee during litigation to pursue a claim against the respondent for breach of fiduciary duty owed to their late mother.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, agreeing that the appellant would be in a conflict of interest.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the motion judge erred in ordering the appellant to pay full indemnity costs, and reduced the award to partial indemnity costs.

The court determined the costs of an appeal regarding the passing of accounts where success was divided.

The respondent was substantially successful on the compensation appeal, while the appellant was successful on the costs appeal, avoiding approximately $45,000 in personal costs.

As a result, no costs of the appeal were awarded.

However, because the appellant had made an offer to settle the costs issue on the same basis as the court's finding, the appellant was awarded $1,500 for the expense of making written costs submissions.

Following a successful appeal from a Master's order dismissing a motion to remove opposing counsel for conflict of interest, the court determined the appropriate costs disposition.

The defendant/appellant sought costs for both the motion before the Master and the appeal.

The court held it had authority to address costs at both stages.

While the quantum of the Master’s $3,000 costs award was maintained, the court ordered those costs payable forthwith rather than in the cause.

Additional partial indemnity costs of $4,250 were awarded for the appeal.

In a case‑managed Commercial List proceeding, the successful parties sought full indemnity costs following success on a motion to compel production of documents and to resist a motion for bifurcation.

The court emphasized that case management aims to ensure timely, fair, and cost‑effective resolution of civil disputes and that parties are expected to resolve procedural disputes informally where possible.

The court held that litigation conduct undermining case‑management objectives—such as unreasonable resistance to documentary production or attempts to derail an agreed timetable—may justify elevated cost sanctions even absent traditional “reprehensible” conduct.

Applying Rule 57 factors and proportionality principles, the court found the requested costs reasonable.

Full indemnity costs were therefore awarded.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claims against Royal Trust for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence regarding an option agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the option agreement was unambiguous and had become null and void after the sale of the business.

The Court also agreed that Royal Trust acted prudently in selling the estate assets and that summary judgment was appropriate under the Hryniak framework.

Following the dismissal of appeals and motions for leave to appeal regarding the appointment of a trustee for an inter vivos trust, the successful parties sought their costs.

The Court of Appeal determined that the normal loser-pays regime applied to the appeals, rather than costs being paid out of the estate, as the uncertainty regarding the trust's administration had been resolved by the application judge.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful beneficiaries and full indemnity costs to the trustee, payable jointly and severally by the appellants.

The defendant appealed a master's order dismissing a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest.

The issue was whether conflict rules applicable to law firm partnerships also apply where lawyers practise in a cost‑sharing association but hold themselves out publicly as a single firm.

The court held that where lawyers present themselves to the public as a firm, the same conflict principles apply, including the presumption that confidential information may be shared absent adequate screening mechanisms.

Because the lawyers shared branding, contact information, and facilities without evidence of protective measures or a shared conflicts system, a reasonable observer would perceive an appearance of conflict.

The master erred in relying on conclusory assurances rather than objective safeguards.

The appeal was allowed and the plaintiff’s counsel was removed from the record.

The applicant brought a motion and application to set aside a 2009 order declaring the respondent sole owner of a Toronto property and directing rectification of the land titles register.

The earlier order had been obtained without notice to the applicant.

The court found that the respondent failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts regarding her ability to locate and communicate with the applicant at the time the order was obtained.

As a result, the order was set aside under Rule 39.01(6) and the parcel register was directed to be restored to its prior state, with remaining ownership issues to be determined at trial.

The applicant developer sought leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a condominium unit it had sold to the respondent, alleging the agreement of purchase and sale was induced by fraudulent representations concerning a larger contemplated purchase of additional units.

The applicant sought rescission and claimed the respondent held the unit in constructive trust.

The court held that the applicant had established a triable issue and a claim to an interest in land for CPL purposes.

However, applying equitable discretion and the Dhunna factors, the court concluded that the property was not unique to the applicant, damages were readily calculable, and the respondent would suffer greater harm due to a pending sale to a third party.

The motion for leave to issue a CPL was therefore dismissed.

The Children's Lawyer and other appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application to appoint an independent trustee for an inter vivos spousal trust.

The appellants alleged that the respondents, who were directors of the corporation wholly owned by the trust, committed a breach of trust by declaring dividends in excess of net income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondents' actions as directors were governed by the Business Corporations Act, not the trust agreement, and did not constitute a breach of trust.

The court also dismissed an application to admit fresh evidence and upheld the application judge's order that costs be paid out of the estate.

In complex commercial litigation involving a Mareva injunction motion, counsel attended the court without following the Commercial List’s procedure for requesting an urgent appointment.

The court emphasized that counsel must contact the Commercial List Office before appearing urgently before a judge and may not bypass the process by attending unannounced in an attempt to vary a prior order.

Although the parties agreed to adjourn the Mareva motion and vary certain procedural timelines, the court criticized the improper attendance and ruled that the plaintiffs would not be entitled to claim costs for the unnecessary appearances.

The court granted the adjournment on consent with modifications and provided further scheduling directions for cross-examinations and the motion return.

The interim injunction remained in effect pending the rescheduled hearing.

The plaintiff brought an action against his sister, the defendant, alleging she misappropriated funds from their late father's estate while acting as his power of attorney.

The plaintiff sought over $800,000, claiming their father lacked capacity to make inter vivos gifts and was subjected to undue influence.

The court found that the father had the requisite capacity to make the gifts, initiated them independently, and was not under the defendant's undue influence.

The court also approved the passing of accounts prepared by an independent accountant, dismissing the plaintiff's claims for damages and ordering him to pay $150,000 in costs.

The estate trustee applied to pass her accounts as attorney for property and estate trustee for her deceased parents.

Her sister objected to the accounts, challenging the compensation claimed, the accounting of cash transactions, the valuation of the parents' home, and the payment of legal fees and roof repairs from the estate.

The court found the trustee's accounts to be accurate and the expenses reasonable.

The court adjusted the valuation of the home to $820,000 based on expert evidence but otherwise approved the accounts and the compensation claimed, finding it fair and reasonable.