Jeanie DeMarco

Following a four-day trial where the applicant was awarded a $450,000 lump sum from the estate, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full or substantial indemnity costs, arguing the estate trustees' conduct was unreasonable.

The court found the respondents' conduct was aggressive but not reprehensible, and since the applicant had withdrawn all offers to settle before trial, partial indemnity costs were appropriate.

The court fixed fees at $125,000 and reduced the claimed disbursements, noting the expert's account was excessive, resulting in a total costs award of $125,000 for fees and $35,387.20 for disbursements, plus HST.

A common law spouse brought an application under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act seeking dependant support from the estate of her deceased partner after his will left the estate entirely to his daughters.

The court determined that the applicant was a dependant spouse within the meaning of s. 57 and that the deceased had not made adequate provision for her proper support under s. 58.

Applying the factors in s. 62, including the parties’ 20‑year cohabiting relationship, the applicant’s age, health issues, limited retirement income, and contributions to the deceased’s household, the court found that she required significant support.

Evidence also established that the deceased intended that his RRSP/RRIF funds would benefit the applicant.

The court concluded that a lump sum payment representing the approximate value of those funds would provide fair and adequate support while allowing the applicant financial independence.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the applicant’s family law application challenging a mediation/arbitration award concerning termination and repayment of spousal support.

The applicant attempted to set aside the arbitration award under the Arbitration Act, 1991 and the Family Law Act, alleging jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, evidentiary issues, and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that the issues had already been determined in prior proceedings, including a denied motion for leave to appeal and an enforcement order of the arbitration award, and were therefore barred by res judicata and issue estoppel.

The court further found the application was out of time under statutory limitation provisions and disclosed no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted and the application dismissed as an abuse of process.

Following earlier reasons on two family law motions, the court determined costs.

The respondent in the underlying motions sought partial indemnity costs for motions to enforce a costs arbitral award and for security for costs.

The court found the respondent had been successful on both motions, although the security for costs order was granted in a lesser amount than requested.

The court held the claimed fees were generally reasonable but disallowed certain unexplained disbursements.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis in favour of the successful moving party.

Following family arbitration concerning spousal support, the respondent sought to enforce an arbitral costs award and to obtain security for costs in related court proceedings.

The applicant had commenced proceedings seeking to set aside the arbitral awards and various related relief.

The court held that the statutory requirements for enforcement of the arbitral costs award under the Family Law Act and Arbitration Act, 1991 were met and incorporated the award into a court order, but stayed enforcement pending the determination of a forthcoming summary judgment motion.

The court also found that security for costs was justified because the applicant resided outside Ontario, but reduced the requested amount and ordered security of $16,000 to be posted through share certificates.

The respondent’s motions were therefore granted with modifications.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitrator’s decision finding that a terminating event under a separation agreement had occurred and ordering repayment of spousal support previously paid.

Under s. 45(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, leave to appeal is available only on questions of law.

The applicant alleged errors relating to contract interpretation, admissibility of evidence, and bias, but failed to particularize any specific legal errors or provide evidentiary support.

The court held that the central issue—whether the applicant was living in a relationship resembling marriage—required applying facts to a legal test and therefore constituted a question of mixed fact and law.

Because leave may only be granted for pure questions of law, the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.