Ian F. Leach

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation and quantum of costs following a contested application to pass accounts in the insolvent estate of Christina Georgiou Psoma.

The court reviews the parties’ positions, the applicable legal principles, and the conduct of the litigation, ultimately awarding the applicant, Steve Georgiou, costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $23,000, payable by the objectors, Panayiotios Georgiou and Zevoulla Georgiou, jointly and severally.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the modern approach to costs in estate litigation, the impact of settlement offers, and the role of proportionality and party conduct in determining costs.

This decision concerns a contested application to pass accounts in the estate of Christina Georgiou Psoma.

The applicant, Steve Georgiou, as estate trustee, sought to have his accounts approved following an ex parte order obtained by the objectors, Panayiotios and Zevoulla Georgiou.

The court addresses threshold issues regarding the propriety of the ex parte order, the scope of the accounting required, and substantive disputes over the treatment of a life insurance policy, a "roofing agreement" debt, and a joint CIBC account.

The court finds that the life insurance proceeds did not form part of the estate, upholds the roofing agreement as a valid debt, and determines that the joint account funds are estate assets.

The estate is found to be insolvent, and the court urges the parties to resolve remaining issues by agreement.

The court considered a motion for contempt against the respondent for failing to comply with an order to vacate a property.

The applicant sought a declaration of contempt, arrest, imprisonment, and a fine.

The court reviewed the procedural and substantive requirements for civil contempt, emphasizing the need for bifurcated liability and penalty phases, and the discretionary and coercive nature of contempt powers.

The court declined to make a formal finding of contempt at this stage, adjourning the motion to allow for further notice and submissions, and to consider less punitive remedies to achieve compliance with the original order.

The court considered two motions in a family property dispute: (1) a motion to strike paragraphs from a statement of defence, and (2) a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration of beneficial ownership of real property, or, in the alternative, damages.

The court struck one paragraph with leave to amend and another without leave, and dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial, particularly regarding the parties' intentions and credibility.

The court made further orders to preserve the status quo and directed that the trial of this action be heard together with related matrimonial proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add Edward Ouellette as a defendant and substitute Stephanie Ouellette as the child plaintiff's litigation guardian.

The court expressed a preliminary view that it was problematic for Edward Ouellette to remain a plaintiff asserting Family Law Act (FLA) damages while simultaneously being added as a defendant against whom claims of independent negligence were advanced.

Citing common law principles, the court noted that a person cannot sue themselves for damages based on their own negligence.

The motion was adjourned to allow plaintiff's counsel to consider the court's concerns and propose revised pleadings, with costs reserved.

The offender was convicted of two counts of sexual assault against his 18-year-old stepdaughter.

The offences involved forced vaginal intercourse and occurred in the victim's home, constituting a severe breach of trust.

The court weighed significant aggravating factors, including the profound psychological impact on the victim, against mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a criminal record and the collateral immigration consequences of likely deportation.

The court imposed consecutive sentences of 3 years for each count, resulting in a global custodial sentence of 6 years, along with a 20-year SOIRA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, specifically Jaskaran Singh Bajwa, based on a guarantee agreement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial as the responding defendant filed no material to support pleaded defences.

However, the court limited the plaintiff's cost recovery to partial indemnity costs, despite contractual agreements for elevated costs, due to concerns about "forum shopping" and the lack of discernible connection between the underlying dispute and the London/Middlesex County venue.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of sexual interference and child luring against his intimate partner's 10- or 11-year-old daughter.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child sexual abuse involving a breach of trust.

The court rejected the defence's request for a conditional sentence, finding it manifestly unfit given the gravity of the offences.

The accused was sentenced to a total of 6.5 years in custody (5.5 years for sexual interference and 1 year consecutive for child luring), less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with various ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank sought summary judgment against the defendants for loan and credit card defaults.

The defendants opposed, arguing the London venue was inappropriate due to lack of local connection and that the motion was premature given potential government guarantees.

The court, noting concerns about "forum shopping" by financial institutions, adjourned the plaintiff's summary judgment motion to allow the defendants to bring a formal motion to transfer the proceeding to Toronto, and also acknowledged the prematurity argument.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, brought a motion to exclude specified material from the record of proceedings filed by the respondents in her underlying application for judicial review.

The judicial review application challenged the Integrity Commissioner's finding that the applicant breached the municipality's code of conduct and the municipal council's subsequent decision to suspend her pay for 90 days.

The applicant argued the Integrity Commissioner did not exercise a statutory power of decision and that the material was irrelevant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Integrity Commissioner did exercise a statutory power of decision and that the targeted material was relevant to the procedural fairness and bias issues raised by the applicant herself.

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) order terminating their 24-year tenancy and evicting them so the landlord husband could occupy the unit following a marriage breakdown.

The respondent landlords brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit because it raised questions of fact and mixed fact and law, rather than questions of law alone as required by s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court quashed the appeal but exercised its discretion to delay the eviction date to allow the tenants time to find new accommodations.

The plaintiff estate trustee sought damages for the conversion and damage of a vintage 1960 Corvette by the defendant, a former family friend who had offered to store the vehicle.

Following a partial judgment ordering the return of the vehicle and a directed reference that failed to properly assess damages, the court held a trial continuation.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that damages should be limited to the replacement cost of the vehicle, finding that the unique nature of the vehicle and the lack of comparable replacements justified an award based on the full cost of restoration.

The court also awarded aggravated damages due to the defendant's profound betrayal of trust and oppressive conduct.

The total damages were capped at the $200,000 limit of the Simplified Procedure.

This endorsement addresses the adjournment of a civil trial due to unforeseen health issues of defence counsel.

The court granted leave for the advance examination of the defendants to preserve evidence, adjourned the trial sine die, and denied the plaintiff's motion to strike the jury notice without prejudice.

The plaintiff was awarded costs for trial preparation "thrown away" due to the adjournment, with a specific timetable for submissions.

This case concerns a dispute over children's schooling and transportation arrangements following a unilateral change of school by the Respondent, in alleged contravention of a prior consent order for joint decision-making.

The Applicant sought to vary the existing parenting order to return the children to their previous school and for sole decision-making authority, or alternative transportation arrangements.

The Respondent cross-moved for Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement and to maintain the new school.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the Respondent's bad faith and unilateral action, ordering the children to return to their original school for the next academic year and assigning current transportation costs to the Respondent.

The accused was tried on one count of sexual interference involving a child complainant.

The court reviewed the child’s adopted video-recorded statement, viva voce evidence, and the mother’s contextual evidence, while applying the reasonable doubt standard and principles governing assessment of child witness credibility.

The court found the complainant’s evidence materially inconsistent internally and over time, implausible in important respects, and affected by a demonstrated motive to fabricate arising from the surrounding parenting and relocation dispute.

Although the complainant’s age and the sexual character of the alleged touching would have been established if the acts had occurred, the Crown failed to prove the touching beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

In a judge-alone trial on two counts of sexual assault, the court found the complainant to be a highly credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused’s evidence as implausible, internally inconsistent, and contradicted by preserved text messages and video recordings.

The court held the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally applied force in circumstances of a sexual nature, that the complainant did not consent, and that the accused knew of that non-consent or was at least reckless or wilfully blind.

The decision contains an extensive review of credibility principles, the W.(D.) framework, sexual assault myths and stereotypes, and the law of consent.

Although unnecessary to the verdict, the court further held in obiter that any ostensible consent would have been vitiated by abuse of a position of trust under s. 273.1(2)(c).

The plaintiff, 620369 Ontario Inc., sought default judgment against the defendants, Michael Latimer and Jodi Latimer, for unpaid building materials.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court found the admitted facts supported judgment based on contractual agreements and the Construction Act, including a statutory trust.

The court also addressed the high interest rate and awarded partial indemnity costs, declining substantial indemnity costs due to the absence of reprehensible conduct by the defendants.

The plaintiff, a person under disability due to a catastrophic brain injury from a motor vehicle accident, sought judicial approval of a proposed tort settlement.

The court reviewed the settlement terms, including a $1.2 million payment from the defendant's insurer and the allocation of funds, considering the significant liability risks for the plaintiff (who failed to stop at a stop sign).

The court approved the settlement, finding it reasonable and excellent given the circumstances, and also approved the plaintiff counsel's reduced contingency fee.

The appellant appealed his two summary convictions for assault against his former intimate partner.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and erred in law by finding the complainant's credibility was 'reinforced' by her failure to embellish her testimony.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the misapprehension of evidence ground but agreed the trial judge engaged in fallacious reasoning regarding credibility.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso, finding the error was not minor and the convictions were not inevitable given that credibility was the central issue.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

This endorsement follows a case conference in a long-standing dispute concerning surface water drainage and contempt of court orders.

The plaintiff sought urgent directions regarding the defendant's refusal to allow proper access for mandated remedial work on his property.

Although the immediate access dispute was resolved prior to the conference, the court clarified that there is no ongoing formal proceeding (`lis pendens`) and that any future enforcement, such as further contempt findings, would require the plaintiff to initiate new formal motions.

The court reiterated the defendant's obligation to comply with previous orders and warned of potential escalated sanctions, including imprisonment, for continued non-compliance.