Jean DeMarco

This is a costs decision following a trial in which the plaintiffs obtained a declaration that the defendant holds a sixty percent interest in property located at 1 Mill Walk Court, Richmond Hill, Ontario.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a partial indemnity basis until March 13, 2025, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter based on an offer to settle made on that date.

The defendant argued for a significant reduction in costs, contending that the plaintiffs abandoned most of their claims and that the offers were not comparable to the relief granted.

The court found that while the offers were not sufficiently comparable to invoke substantial indemnity costs, the plaintiffs had made genuine settlement efforts and the costs claimed were reasonable for most stages of the litigation.

The court awarded costs of $120,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, representing a discount from the plaintiffs' claim due to the shifting relief sought.

The court considered whether a $1.2 million advance from the late William Humphries, through Radlett Holdings Inc., to Angela Zheng was a gift or created a resulting trust.

The court found that the funds were not a gift, but rather that Radlett Holdings Inc. retained a 60% beneficial interest in the property purchased by Angela Zheng, based on the intention of the deceased at the time of the advance.

The court relied on the evidence of the lawyer and accountant for the deceased, and found the defendant's evidence not credible.

The court determined costs following a motion and cross-motion regarding child custody and access.

The father had initially obtained an ex parte order for sole custody and supervised access based on incomplete disclosure regarding the mother's mental health.

The mother was ultimately substantially successful in obtaining joint custody and unsupervised access.

The court found the father acted substantially unreasonably by failing to make full disclosure on his ex parte motion and by failing to make timely settlement offers.

The mother was awarded costs of $73,712.34, representing 70% of her legal fees plus disbursements.

The respondent sought reimbursement of $107,000 in expenses allegedly incurred as a result of ex parte orders made on June 25 and 27, 2018.

The respondent claimed the applicant breached the duty of candour by omitting vital information and mischaracterizing facts, thereby misleading the court into making orders it would not otherwise have made.

The court dismissed the request for damages, finding that the Ontario Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction to award damages on motions for interlocutory injunctions or mandatory orders.

The court noted that while such conduct might constitute bad faith or unreasonable behaviour, the appropriate remedy is through costs awards under the Family Law Rules, not damages.

Paternal grandparents sought to be added as parties to a child protection proceeding and requested interim access to three children (ages 13, 10, and 4) whose mother was murdered and whose father was charged with first-degree murder.

The children were placed in the care of maternal grandparents.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that adding the paternal grandparents as parties was not in the children's best interests, would unduly delay proceedings, and was not necessary to determine the issues.

The court also dismissed claims for interim access and documentary disclosure, and refused to admit a transcript from the father's criminal preliminary hearing due to fairness concerns and publication ban restrictions.