Helen M. Pierce

The defendant was wholly successful on a motion requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs and sought partial indemnity costs of $14,518.73.

The plaintiff argued for $5,000 to $6,000 but filed its bill of costs late, which the court declined to consider.

The court disallowed time claimed for legal assistants but noted the plaintiff had filed voluminous unnecessary materials, justifying the defendant's time spent reviewing them.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a successful trial of an issue where a marriage contract was set aside, the applicant sought costs of $21,415.93.

The respondent argued against the quantum, citing his limited income and the applicant's offers to settle.

The court found that the applicant's offers did not trigger substantial indemnity costs under Rule 18 but rejected the respondent's argument regarding ability to pay.

The court disallowed claims for support staff and awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs fixed at $15,958.

The plaintiff moved to amend its statement of claim to continue the action under the simplified procedure.

The defendants did not oppose the amendment but sought costs unnecessarily incurred under Rule 76.13.

The court previously awarded these costs and reserved the costs of the motion itself.

In this decision, the court determined the quantum of costs for the successful defendant, Concrete Walls, fixing them at $10,000 plus HST on a partial indemnity basis.

The offender, an 18-year-old male, threw a heavy trailer hitch from a moving vehicle, striking an Indigenous woman and hastening her death.

He pleaded guilty to the underlying act and was convicted of manslaughter.

The Crown sought 8 to 12 years, arguing high moral culpability and bias against sex workers.

The defence sought 4 years, citing youth, lack of record, and remorse.

The court found the attack was unprovoked, gratuitous, and motivated by bias against women (specifically sex workers).

The court sentenced the offender to 8 years in penitentiary, less 1 month for pre-sentence custody, plus ancillary orders.

The applicant, a medical cosmetic care business operated by a registered nurse, sought a declaration that it was exempt from COVID-19 shutdown regulations because it provided health care services.

The Thunder Bay District Health Unit had directed the business to close on the basis that it provided personal care services.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, applying principles of statutory interpretation to find that the applicant's services were aesthetic and cosmetic in nature, not medical.

The court held that the business did not share the common features of health care clinics and was therefore subject to the mandatory closure of personal care services under the shutdown regulations.

The representative plaintiffs moved for approval of a $10 million settlement in a class proceeding against the Crown regarding its alleged systemic negligence and breach of fiduciary duty toward former Crown wards.

The class alleged the Crown failed to pursue compensation for abuse they suffered.

Sixty former Crown wards objected to the settlement, arguing the compensation was inadequate and failed to address the actual harms suffered.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the settlement was not fair, reasonable, or in the best interests of the class, as it effectively abandoned the major claims for compensation and provided only minimal recovery after legal fees and administration costs.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a marriage contract executed shortly before the parties' marriage.

The contract was drafted by a single lawyer who acted for both parties without providing independent legal advice or requiring full financial disclosure.

The court found that the lack of financial disclosure and independent legal advice meant neither party understood the nature or consequences of the contract.

The court exercised its discretion under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act to set aside the marriage contract.

The plaintiff moved to amend its statement of claim to reduce its damages from $500,000 to $60,461.87, thereby transferring the action from the ordinary procedure to the simplified procedure.

The defendants consented to the amendment but sought substantial indemnity costs for expenses unnecessarily incurred by the plaintiff's initial choice of procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff knew or should have known the claim fell within the simplified procedure limits before issuing the claim.

The court granted the amendment and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' unnecessarily incurred costs and disbursements on a substantial indemnity basis, deferring the issue of Rule 76.13(3) cost consequences to the trial judge.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Community Council decision denying them a front yard parking pad permit.

The permit was refused because the proposed pad was on the same side of the street as authorized permit parking and was too close to a protected tree.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness and that their application was grandparented by a 31-year-old abandoned application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Community Council's decision was reasonable and that the applicants were afforded an appropriate level of procedural fairness given the context.

The applicants, directors and majority shareholders of two corporations, sought an order that the corporations indemnify them for legal costs incurred in a winding-up application and a related action.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing the applicants did not act honestly and in good faith.

The court found the applicants acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporations, despite the respondents' active opposition to the winding-up.

The court granted the motion, ordering the corporations to indemnify the applicants for their reasonable legal costs, less unbilled amounts and costs thrown away, and awarded costs of the motion to the applicants.

The court determined the costs of an application to wind-up two corporations and a related action, following years of protracted and bitter litigation.

The applicants were largely successful and sought enhanced costs, including against a non-party shareholder.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs for several motions due to the respondents' vexatious and obstructive conduct.

The court also awarded costs to a self-represented litigant for time spent performing work ordinarily done by a lawyer.

The non-party shareholder was held jointly and severally liable for a portion of the costs in the action due to her unreasonable refusal of settlement offers.

The accused threw a heavy trailer hitch from a moving vehicle, striking the victim in the abdomen and rupturing her small bowel.

The victim, who suffered from advanced liver disease, underwent surgery but died five months later from complications including peritonitis and pneumonia.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault but contested the manslaughter charge, arguing his actions did not cause her death or that delayed medical treatment broke the chain of causation.

The court found that the blunt force trauma was a significant contributing cause that accelerated her death, and that no intervening act severed legal causation.

The accused was found guilty of manslaughter.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Baltman J. dated November 29, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,222.67.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a lower court order.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of $2,500 awarded to the successful party on the appeal.

The parties were directed to settle an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from an order of Belobaba J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The appellant subcontractor supplied materials to a construction project but was not paid by the contractor, who subsequently went bankrupt.

Having failed to register a construction lien, the appellant sued the owner for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act and unjust enrichment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act requires privity of trust for a trust claim and that the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Act provides a juristic reason precluding an unjust enrichment claim against the owner.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to each of the three responding parties, for a total of $9,000.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of a jointly-owned property under the Partition Act.

The respondent, who had been in sole occupation and receiving rental income for five years, did not oppose the sale but disputed terms regarding the realtor, property taxes, bidding rights, and costs.

The court ordered the sale of the property, requiring an arms-length realtor, allowing the respondent to bid, and ordering the respondent to pay $2,000 in costs to the applicant.

The net proceeds of sale were to be equally divided, with any tax liens paid by the responsible party.

The plaintiff brought a motion for the recovery of personal property from the defendant following a dispute over an oral lease agreement.

The plaintiff alleged illegal distraint after the defendant changed locks and began using the plaintiff's chattels.

The court found that the defendant's actions constituted illegal distraint as the landlord-tenant relationship had terminated upon the changing of locks, thereby precluding the remedy of distraint.

The motion was granted, ordering the recovery of the plaintiff's personal property and fixing costs.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding they acted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to the respondent, a minority shareholder, contrary to s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The dispute centered on the appellants operating a jointly-owned gravel pit for the benefit of their own separate company at a highly favourable rate, disregarding the respondent's interest in a reasonable return.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's determination of the respondent's reasonable expectations, and held that the business judgment rule did not protect decisions made without considering fairness to the minority shareholder.