James Jagtoo

On an estate appeal, the appellants challenged findings that upheld a later will, dismissed their application, and refused costs relief.

The court found legal and palpable-and-overriding errors in the trial-level analysis of suspicious circumstances, knowledge and approval, conflict concerns surrounding the drafting solicitor, and undue influence evidence.

The court held the impugned will invalid, granted related relief dismissing the connected Small Claims Court action, and set aside the costs order.

Applying modern estate-costs principles, the court ordered a blended costs result, including substantial indemnity costs personally against the respondent for part of first-instance costs, with the remaining amounts payable from the estate.

This is a will challenge concerning the estate of Reka Anroop.

The applicants, Bryan Anroop and Amadai Hardayal, challenged the validity of Reka’s Fourth Will dated May 19, 2022, alleging lack of knowledge and approval, lack of capacity, undue influence, forgery, and unconscionable procurement.

The respondents are Reka’s adult children, with only Chandrawattie Naqvi participating in the litigation.

The court found that the Fourth Will was valid, Reka had capacity, was not unduly influenced, and the signature was not a forgery.

The applicants’ claim for reimbursement for renovations was allowed.

The court also addressed a related Small Claims Court action regarding a life insurance payout.

The appellant law firm appealed the dismissal of its application seeking to set a market rate for lease renewal and compensation for renovations, and also sought leave to appeal a costs order from a prior cross-motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the respondent landlord did not breach its duty to act in good faith during lease negotiations, that the expert evidence was properly considered, and that compensation for renovations was not warranted.

The court also refused leave to appeal the costs order from the cross-motion, finding no strong grounds to interfere with the motion judge's discretion.

The applicant tenant brought an application seeking to have the court determine the market rate for a lease renewal and extend the contract, alleging the respondent landlord failed to negotiate in good faith.

The court reviewed the history of negotiations and found that both parties had negotiated in good faith but simply failed to reach an agreement.

The court also dismissed the applicant's alternative claims for compensation for leasehold improvements, noting the lease explicitly made such improvements the tenant's responsibility.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant tenant sought to renew a commercial lease, but the parties could not agree on the market rate for basic rent.

The applicant brought an application requesting the court to fix the market rate and extend the lease, arguing the respondent breached its duty to negotiate in good faith.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the lease's renewal clause contained a specific failure provision that revoked the renewal option if mutual agreement was not reached.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to compel the landlord to accept an unagreed rent, and found no breach of the duty of good faith as both parties had negotiated genuinely but failed to agree.

The lease was extended by one month due to the respondent's delay tactics.

Following a family law trial where the respondent was largely successful in setting aside a separation agreement and establishing a resulting trust, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The respondent sought $222,540.22 on a full recovery basis, citing the applicant's unreasonable conduct and failure to disclose, while the applicant argued for costs fixed at $60,000.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, and noting the respondent beat her own offer to settle, the court fixed costs at $150,000 all inclusive.

The applicant husband sought a divorce relying on a 2010 separation agreement.

The respondent wife sought to set aside the agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, arguing it was signed without financial disclosure, under false pretenses to shield assets from creditors, and was unconscionable.

The court agreed, finding the husband deliberately withheld disclosure and exploited the wife's vulnerabilities.

The agreement was set aside.

The court declared the wife a 50% beneficial owner of the matrimonial home via a resulting trust, and awarded her retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

The applicant sought an urgent motion to address the respondent's withholding of parenting time for their son, alleging a significant breach of a final joint custody order.

The court found the situation met the urgency criteria established during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing the motion to proceed in writing.

A timetable was set for the respondent's materials and any reply, with parties encouraged to file a proposed draft order for make-up access.

The plaintiff, a former Service Advisor at a Canadian Tire store, sued his former employer and others for wrongful dismissal, malicious prosecution, defamation, and other torts after he was fired and arrested for allegedly installing KGB spyware on his manager's computer.

The plaintiff claimed he was framed by the defendants either because he refused to 'upsell' or as a decoy for a separate credit card pin pad fraud.

The court rejected the plaintiff's conspiracy theories, finding that the employer proved on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff installed the spyware, which constituted just cause for dismissal.

The court also dismissed all tort claims, finding the defendants had reasonable grounds to call the police, the police independently decided to lay charges, and the defendants' conduct was not malicious, outrageous, or defamatory.

The defendant employer moved for summary judgment to dismiss a negligent misrepresentation claim regarding group life insurance benefits.

The plaintiff alleged the employer failed to adequately communicate a change in the definition of 'accident' in the policy, which resulted in the denial of accidental death benefits following the employee's fatal fall.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no evidence of inaccurate information, negligence, reliance, or damages to support the misrepresentation claim.

The court heard a costs endorsement following an urgent motion on December 8, 2015, where the respondent was largely successful.

The applicant argued against costs due to late submissions, alleged deficiencies in the respondent's Bill of Costs, and claims of the respondent misleading the court and acting in bad faith.

The respondent sought substantial recovery, citing the applicant's unreasonableness and non-participation.

The court found the respondent to be the successful party and entitled to costs, despite both parties failing to serve formal Offers to Settle.

The court awarded the respondent $5,232.50 in costs plus HST and disbursements, totaling $6,074.88, to be paid from the applicant's share of matrimonial home sale proceeds.

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion to enforce an offer to settle regarding unpaid legal fees and the release of the defendant's matrimonial file.

The firm also sought a declaration of a solicitor's lien and advance payment of its accounts pending assessment.

The court found that the offer to settle had been accepted and ordered the firm to release the file, while directing the defendant to hold funds in trust as security.

The court dismissed the firm's requests for a solicitor's lien and advance payment.

Due to the acrimonious and disproportionate conduct of both counsel, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The parties brought cross-motions to vary and enforce temporary child and spousal support orders.

The husband, who had recently lost his employment, sought to reduce his support obligations and access $20,000 from the matrimonial home sale proceeds held in trust.

The wife sought enforcement of the existing orders and further financial disclosure.

The court recalculated the husband's retroactive support obligations based on his actual income, declined to impute employment income to the wife, and ordered $33,384 to be released from the trust funds to the wife to satisfy the husband's support arrears.

The husband was also ordered to pay ongoing support based on his current Employment Insurance income and to provide further disclosure.

The plaintiff was successful in a wrongful dismissal trial and sought costs.

Following the trial but before costs were decided, the defendant made a voluntary assignment into bankruptcy.

The court noted that the plaintiff did not need to seek an order lifting the stay under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to obtain a costs order, as judgment was rendered prior to the assignment.

The plaintiff beat its offer to settle and sought full indemnity costs of over $232,000.

The court applied the overriding principle of reasonableness, declining to engage in a purely mathematical exercise of reviewing time spent, and fixed the plaintiff's costs at $73,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old upholsterer with 32 years of service, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal.

He passed away before trial, raising preliminary evidentiary issues regarding the admissibility of his examination for discovery transcripts and hearsay statements made to others.

The court admitted the evidence under the principled approach to hearsay.

On the merits, the court found the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed, not having resigned as the employer claimed, and awarded 23 months' reasonable notice.

The court also awarded $5,000 for a breach of the Human Rights Code, finding the termination was partly based on age and disability, but dismissed claims for aggravated and punitive damages.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim for accidental death and dismemberment benefits following the insured’s fatal fall from a condominium balcony.

The estate alleged the death was accidental and further claimed the insurer breached its duty of good faith by denying coverage.

The court held that the claimant bears the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the death resulted from an accident within the meaning of the policy.

After reviewing the surrounding circumstances and physical evidence, the court found the accidental fall theory was not supported and that the plaintiff could not prove accidental death.

The insurer’s denial of benefits was also found to be reasonable and not made in bad faith.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim to add two additional defendants in an action alleging wrongful dismissal and related civil wrongs.

The proposed defendants opposed the amendment on the basis that the applicable two‑year limitation period had expired under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court considered the discoverability doctrine and whether the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the involvement of the proposed defendants more than two years before the motion was served.

Finding the evidentiary record insufficient to determine the discoverability issue conclusively, the court granted leave to amend and permitted the proposed defendants to plead a limitations defence.

Costs of the motion were reserved.

The applicant sought orders declaring a Toronto property to be a matrimonial home, authorizing a mortgage without the titled spouse’s consent under s. 23 of the Family Law Act, and staying a lender’s power of sale proceedings.

The respondent opposed the application and brought a cross‑application seeking cancellation of a matrimonial home designation and vacant possession.

The court held that the dispute was fundamentally a family law matter that should have been commenced under the Family Law Rules with full financial disclosure rather than under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Given deficient evidence, contested marital status, and lack of financial disclosure, the court declined to grant interlocutory relief to either party.

Both applications were dismissed without prejudice and administratively transferred to the Family Law Court, allowing the parties to recommence proceedings properly.

Following dismissal of an appeal from an arbitrator’s decision, the successful party sought full indemnity costs on the basis that the appeal was hopeless and should never have been brought.

The court reviewed the governing principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that full indemnity costs require reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct.

The court found that although the appellant was unsuccessful, the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious and counsel’s conduct was professional.

The request for full indemnity costs was therefore rejected.

Partial indemnity costs of $10,492.46 were awarded as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought to increase the agreed partial indemnity costs amount and to obtain substantial indemnity costs based on a Rule 49 offer under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s misleading conduct justified denying the plaintiff costs and awarding costs to the defendant instead.

The court held that the parties’ agreement that $41,000 represented reasonable partial indemnity costs should be respected and declined to increase the amount.

The court also refused substantial indemnity costs due to the plaintiff’s misleading conduct but declined to award costs to the defendant.