Gregory M. Sidlofsky

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing her motion for summary judgment against the defendant bank.

The underlying action involved the bank transferring funds from the plaintiff's deceased mother's account to her brother, despite a Kuwaiti court ruling that the funds belonged to the plaintiff.

The motion judge had dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the Kuwaiti decision established the facts pleaded.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision to look behind the foreign judgment's reasoning.

The plaintiffs initially succeeded on a motion to bifurcate a class proceeding trial.

The defendants obtained leave to appeal that order.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs abandoned the appeal, proposing that no costs be awarded.

The defendants rejected this proposal and brought a motion to fix costs for the initial motion, the leave to appeal motion, the abandoned appeal, and the current motion.

The court granted the defendants' motion, awarding them costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $17,971.75.

The appellants sought leave to appeal a judgment for costs.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle to justify granting leave.

Leave to appeal was denied and the appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $8,500.

The appellant appealed a motions judge's decision finding a concluded settlement between the parties for $12,000.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of a settlement, noting that correspondence confirmed the agreement and the appellant's former counsel conceded the amount.

However, the Court varied the order to direct that the $12,000 settlement amount, plus accrued interest, be paid to the appellant out of money held in court.

The respondent's cross-appeal for costs of the motion was dismissed, and no costs were awarded for the appeal.

The tenant leased a rental unit but later moved to a new home, allowing two friends to move into the unit without the landlord's consent.

The tenant also constructed a basement bedroom without a building permit to use during occasional overnight stays.

The landlord applied to evict the unauthorized occupants and terminate the tenancy.

The Court of Appeal held that the tenant had transferred occupancy to his friends and that the illegal construction of the bedroom was a serious illegal act justifying termination of the tenancy.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claims against the respondents and a real estate agent.

The appellants argued that a release signed in blank was only to be used if a first real estate transaction did not close, alleging the two transactions were linked.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the parol evidence rule precluded evidence of the alleged linkage, as the documentation contained no such linkage and was reviewed by the appellants' lawyers.

The claim against the real estate agent, also based on the alleged linkage, was similarly dismissed.

Borins J.A. dissented, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the release's provenance and the agent's alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

The appellant sought to set aside a certificate assessing trial and appeal costs on the basis that the assessment officer relied on insufficient documentary support, particularly the absence of time dockets.

The court held that the authority relied on by the appellant concerning unsupported lump-sum fee claims arose from materially different facts involving uncertainty over retainer and duplication of legal services.

Applying the deferential standard governing appellate review of cost assessments, the court found no error in principle and no gross impropriety in the amounts assessed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.