Howard Keith Juriansz

The appellant appealed a trial judgment declaring the respondent the sole beneficial owner of a residential property and ordering its transfer, along with general and punitive damages.

The trial judge found the appellant held the property in trust for the respondent, her niece, who paid the deposit and carrying costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's interpretation of the trust documents or her rejection of the appellant's illegality defence.

The punitive damages award was upheld as the appellant's high-handed conduct, including failing to pay property taxes and maintain insurance, merited sanction.

The owners of a residential property sought to discharge a construction lien registered by Serena Homes Construction Limited in the amount of $1,612,303.43.

The owners alleged that Serena Homes fraudulently altered invoices from subcontractors to inflate costs.

Serena Homes acknowledged exaggeration in the lien amount and proposed a reduction to $1,352,092.55, later adjusted to $1,043,282.55 after further review.

The court found that while the lien contained exaggerated amounts, the claim was not frivolous or vexatious, and a substantial debt remained owing for services provided.

The court reduced the lien to $1,043,282.55 rather than discharging it entirely, finding that the exact amount owing and whether mark-ups were contemplated by the agreement were issues for trial.

The court considered whether a binding and enforceable settlement was reached between the parties following mediation and subsequent email exchanges.

The Applicant sought an order to enforce the settlement terms, while the Respondent argued that no binding agreement existed due to the absence of a signed document and unresolved essential terms.

The court found that the parties had reached consensus on all essential terms, as evidenced by their conduct and correspondence, and that the agreement was enforceable despite not meeting the formal requirements of a domestic contract under the Family Law Act.

The Applicant’s motion was granted, and a final order was issued in accordance with the settlement.

The applicant estate trustee sought leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property solely owned by the deceased's former common-law partner, claiming a 50 percent beneficial interest via constructive trust.

The respondent challenged the applicant's standing as the proceeding was commenced before the estate certificate was issued.

The court found the applicant had standing under Rule 9.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

However, the court dismissed the motion for a CPL, finding insufficient evidence of a triable issue regarding an interest in land, as the applicant's evidence of the deceased's financial contributions was largely uncorroborated hearsay.

The court ordered the respondent to return the deceased's personal property and awarded fixed costs of $15,000 to the respondent.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated April 14, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The applicants sought continuation of a Mareva injunction, a timetable for the underlying proceeding, and a contempt declaration arising from an asset disclosure order in a complex debt collection dispute tied to real estate development projects and alleged personal guarantees.

The respondents cross-moved to vacate earlier without-notice and interim injunctive orders.

The court held that the applicants failed to make the full and fair disclosure required on a without-notice injunction motion and, in any event, failed to establish the substantive requirements for Mareva relief, including a strong prima facie case against the individual respondents and a sufficient evidentiary basis for prejudgment execution.

The contempt motion was dismissed because non-compliance and wilfulness were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The earlier orders were vacated, the proceeding was converted into an action, and costs were made costs in the cause.

The plaintiff, 2770095 Ontario Inc., a special purpose vehicle incorporated one day before the assignment, brought an action to recover over $1 million in alleged missing funds from payment processing, assigned from Affinitas Medios de Pago S.A.P.I de C.V. The defendants, Maxwell Dean Morgan and Tricia Edwards, moved to dismiss the action, arguing the assignment was invalid due to champerty and maintenance.

The court found that the assignment of tort claims was champertous, as the plaintiff had no pre-existing commercial or financial interest in the litigation and was created solely to pursue the claim for profit.

The court dismissed the action as an abuse of process and set aside all interim and interlocutory orders, including Mareva injunctions and certificates of pending litigation.

This ruling addresses the costs of a six-day trial concerning a father's motion to change and a mother's response, primarily focused on spousal support and child support termination.

The court had previously dismissed the father's claims to set aside a consent order and terminate spousal support, and the mother's claim for student loan contributions, while ordering increased spousal support for the mother without a termination date.

The mother sought approximately $80,000 in costs, and the father argued for no costs or a maximum of $15,000.

The court found the mother to be the successful party on the most significant issue (spousal support) and awarded her $55,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The decision considered the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties' behaviour, and offers to settle, ultimately declining to impose increased costs for unreasonable behaviour.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully defending a motion to extend an interim injunction.

The court declined to award costs immediately, exercising its discretion to defer costs to the cause.

The court reasoned that the defendants might ultimately be found liable at trial for serious breaches of fiduciary duty and unfair competition, making an immediate costs award inappropriate.

The court also noted the defendants violated formatting rules by submitting single-spaced materials to circumvent page limits.

The plaintiffs moved to continue an interim injunction granted a year prior, which prohibited the defendants (former fiduciary employees) from soliciting the plaintiffs' customers and employees.

The court dismissed the motion to extend the injunction, finding that the one-year period had already provided the plaintiffs with a reasonable amount of time to solidify their customer relationships and protect their goodwill from the defendants' unfair 'springboard' competition.

The court also directed the proceedings into case management.

The father brought a motion to change to terminate child and spousal support, and to set aside a prior consent order regarding child support termination dates.

The mother responded, seeking an increase in spousal support due to her permanent disability and the father's increased income, as well as a retroactive contribution to the adult children's student loans.

The court dismissed the father's request to set aside the consent order and his request to terminate spousal support, finding the mother remained permanently disabled and in need.

The court also dismissed the mother's claim for retroactive section 7 expenses due to lack of timely notice and insufficient evidence.

Ultimately, the court ordered an increase in ongoing spousal support to meet the mother's needs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage enforcement action against the defendant company and its alleged director.

The company opposed the motion, arguing the mortgage was a 'fraudulent instrument' under the Land Titles Act because the director fraudulently held herself out as an officer of the company to obtain the mortgage.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that even if the allegations of fraud were true, the director was not a 'fictitious person' and did not hold herself out to be the registered owner of the property, meaning the mortgage did not meet the statutory definition of a fraudulent instrument.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion to quash an appeal brought by the respondent, Ms. LaFontaine.

The appellant, Mr. Froom, had appealed an interlocutory order from the Superior Court of Justice.

The motion judge had adjourned Ms. LaFontaine's motion to trial, imposing terms including a requirement for Mr. Froom to deposit US$475,000 into court.

The Court of Appeal determined that the underlying order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore an appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave, not directly to the Court of Appeal.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed, and Mr. Froom's request to transfer the appeal to the Divisional Court was denied.

Costs were awarded to Ms. LaFontaine.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

This endorsement addresses the question of costs following the plaintiff's unsuccessful motion for the release of funds held in trust.

The defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff did not oppose a costs award but argued for a lower amount, citing procedural delays and duplication of effort.

The court, applying principles of indemnity, proportionality, and reasonable expectation, fixed the defendant's costs at $11,500, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion seeking the release of over $1.1 million held in trust by its counsel.

The funds had been paid into trust pursuant to a consent order to replace a vendor take-back mortgage on the subject property, pending a final determination of the amount owing to the defendant vendor.

The plaintiff argued that the funds should be released because the agreed-upon timetable for resolving the dispute had passed, the trust arrangement amounted to execution before judgment, and the plaintiff had sufficient assets to satisfy any judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the consent order did not provide for the release of the security if the timetable was not met, that holding agreed-upon security is not execution before judgment, and that the court has no jurisdiction to deprive a secured creditor of its security simply because the debtor has other assets.

The moving party brought motions to declare the plaintiffs' construction liens expired under the Construction Lien Act.

The substantive relief was granted on consent.

The only remaining issue was costs.

The court declined to award costs to the moving party, finding that its counsel had engaged in sharp practice by failing to respond to correspondence from opposing counsel that revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the statutory deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that correcting this clear mistake would not have sacrificed the client's rights and that the motions could have been brought ex parte or in writing.

A commercial real estate deal involving three properties failed to close.

The plaintiff, NJS Capital Management Inc., brought a summary judgment motion for breach of contract, while the defendants counterclaimed, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking rectification, or rescission based on unconscionability, arguing the deals were cross-conditional and a package.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendants breached the contracts and dismissing the counterclaims, concluding there was no oral agreement for cross-conditionality or misrepresentation, and the contracts were not unconscionable.

The Plaintiff brought three motions: for costs related to previous motions against TD Bank, to compel outstanding document productions from the Defendants, and for leave to amend her Statement of Claim.

The court awarded the Plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $3,000 against the Defendants for their conduct in unnecessarily prolonging the TD Bank motions, but reserved the issue of full indemnity costs based on alleged fraud to the trial judge.

The court also issued specific orders compelling the Defendants to produce various financial documents within 60 days.

The Plaintiff was granted leave to amend her Statement of Claim to increase claims for aggravated and punitive damages, with other proposed amendments adjourned.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the quantum and duration of spousal support, as well as the costs award.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to impute a higher income to the respondent based on her part-time earnings with tips and commissions, and by ordering support for five years without a reduction over time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law, as the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and consistent with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.