Jennifer Lynne Hawn

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 plaintiff, a Health, Safety and Training Manager, was terminated for cause by her employer after 13 years of service.

The termination stemmed from her handling of her own workplace safety and insurance claim, including delayed reporting, inconsistencies, and a conflict of interest.

The court found the employee's conduct, including dishonesty and suborning a lower-level employee, constituted just cause for dismissal.

The employee's claim for wrongful dismissal and punitive damages was dismissed.

The employer's counterclaim for an unpaid loan was also dismissed, as the loan was held by a separate numbered company, not the employer.

The defendants brought a motion for contempt against the plaintiff, alleging the plaintiff breached interim and interlocutory injunctions prohibiting the use, removal, or modification of conduit supplied and installed by the defendants.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the orders were clear, the plaintiff had knowledge of them, and the plaintiff intentionally breached the orders by connecting fibre optic cable in the prohibited conduit.

The plaintiff was found in contempt, with the penalty phase to follow.

This appeal concerned a failed residential real estate transaction where the buyers' financing fell through, leading the sellers to terminate the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and retain the deposit.

The sellers subsequently resold the property for a higher price.

The buyers sought specific performance, damages, or relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the sellers were entitled to terminate the APS as they were ready, willing, and able to close, and that relief from forfeiture was not warranted, despite the sellers realizing a profit on the resale.

The court also addressed the duty of honest performance and the effect of anticipatory repudiation.

The defendant brought a motion to quash two summonses to witness issued by the plaintiffs, which sought to examine two of the defendant's lawyers on pending interlocutory motions regarding the sale of jointly owned property.

The court quashed the summonses on three grounds: failure to comply with service requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to demonstrate that the lawyers' evidence was relevant and necessary, and abuse of process.

The court found the summonses were issued for ulterior purposes, including gathering evidence for a separate action against the lawyers and attempting to create a conflict of interest to preclude them from acting as counsel.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the estates of the deceased drivers.

Due to the plaintiff and his father sharing the same name, the plaintiff's counsel mistakenly believed the plaintiff owned the vehicle and did not name the father as a defendant.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiff added the father as a defendant.

The third-party insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against the father as statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the father's ownership was discoverable with reasonable diligence before the limitation period expired, and drew an adverse inference from the failure of the plaintiff, his father, and their senior counsel to provide affidavits.