Harry Mann

Following a previous endorsement, the defendant submitted a bill of costs seeking an additional $4,919.11.

The court declined to award the additional costs, noting that while the plaintiff failed to advance the matter for five years, the defendant also sat idle.

The court maintained its previous minimal costs order to avoid encouraging defendants to sit idle during litigation.

The plaintiff commenced a defamation action against his brother in 2015.

Apart from the exchange of pleadings, no steps were taken for over five years.

At a status hearing, the plaintiff argued the delay was justified by overlapping family estate litigation, his mother's instructions to wait, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court rejected these explanations, finding no evidence of efforts to advance or settle the matter, and inferred the plaintiff had intended to abandon the action until the defendant commenced a separate defamation suit in 2020.

The action was dismissed for delay.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding them only $5,000 in damages against their former real estate lawyer for a title defect error.

The trial judge found the lawyer breached his duty of care but concluded the appellants' significant claims for reduction in property value, carrying costs, and business losses were not caused by the title defect, but rather by the appellants overpricing the property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions on causation, damages, or the exclusion of expert evidence.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought an order for forfeiture of $163,015.29 held in a TD bank account, pursuant to the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, alleging the funds were proceeds of unlawful activity (fraud) or the account was an instrument of unlawful activity.

The account owner, Kamal Sehgal, opposed the application, asserting the funds were legitimately deposited through a Hawala system.

The court found that the majority of the funds ($141,965.29) were proceeds of unlawful activity and the account was an instrument of unlawful activity, rejecting Sehgal's explanation of a legitimate Hawala transaction due to lack of credible evidence and missing essential elements.

A portion of the funds ($21,050.29) was deemed legitimately owned by Sehgal and exempted from forfeiture, while the balance was forfeited to the Crown.

The court fixed costs following a nine-day construction lien trial where success was mixed.

Northridge Homes Ltd. and sub-trade plaintiffs (CAAJ Construction Inc., 2225043 Ontario Inc., and 2142043 Ontario Inc.) sought substantial costs, while the defendants argued for no costs or significantly reduced amounts due to divided success and proportionality.

The court found that all parties shared blame for the protracted trial and applied the principle of proportionality, noting that costs should be fair and reasonable, not merely a mechanical calculation of hours.

The court awarded Northridge Homes Ltd. $60,000 in total costs and the sub-trade plaintiffs $11,150 in total costs, significantly less than requested.

This case involved two consolidated actions concerning construction and renovation work.

Northridge Homes Ltd. sued Manjit and Harjinder Sandhu for payment and a construction lien.

Separately, subcontractors CAAJ Construction Inc., 225043 Ontario Inc., and 2142043 Ontario Inc. sued the Sandhus and Northridge for payment and liens.

The court found a valid contract between Northridge and the Sandhus, and that Northridge's lien was timely and valid.

Most of the Sandhus' claims for set-off due to deficiencies were rejected due to lack of proof and failure to plead them.

The court awarded Northridge $32,401.84 and the subcontractors their full claimed amounts, declaring valid liens against the Sandhus' property.

The applicants challenged the validity of a codicil and an amendment to a cohabitation agreement executed by their late father, arguing he lacked testamentary capacity and was subject to undue influence.

The court found that despite a diagnosis of mild dementia, the deceased had testamentary capacity and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the documents were not suspicious.

The codicil and amendment were declared valid.

However, the court found that the deceased's Life Income Fund (LIF) passed to his estate, not to the respondent spouse, based on the clear intentions expressed in the original cohabitation agreement.