Joan Kasozi

The applicant brought a garnishment hearing to enforce a 2011 Quebec family law judgment against the respondent.

The applicant sought to reduce the statutory wage exemption under the Wages Act, hold the garnishee companies liable for the full judgment debt, and compel further corporate productions.

The court reduced the respondent's wage exemption from 80 percent to 60 percent due to his conduct in evading payment.

The court also ordered one garnishee company to pay 40 percent of management fees it had paid to the respondent's alter ego corporation.

The court declined to hold the garnishee companies liable for the full debt, finding they had not concealed income or filed void statements, but ordered limited documentary production regarding the respondent's shares in a holding company.

The applicant Estate Trustees sought the court's opinion and advice on interpreting a clause in the testator's will that granted one of her sons an option to purchase her 'farming business' for a fixed price.

The son argued that the testator's rental of the farm property to him constituted carrying on the farming business.

Applying the armchair rule, the court found that the testator intended the phrase to mean the active farming business she and her late husband had previously operated, not the passive rental of land.

As the testator was not carrying on the active farming business at her death, the option to purchase was declared ineffective and the farm property fell into the residue of the estate.

Following a decision granting Brewers Retail's motion for security for costs and Chill Media's motion to late file expert reports, the court determined the costs of the motions.

Brewers Retail sought costs of $18,864.93, while Chill Media argued for divided success and partial indemnity costs of $6,339.

The court found Brewers Retail to be the successful party, as Chill Media was seeking an indulgence to vary a previous order.

The court awarded Brewers Retail its requested costs of $18,864.93, payable in any event of the cause but not forthwith, to avoid frustrating the plaintiff's ability to prosecute its claim.

This decision addresses a motion by Brewers Retail Inc. for security for costs against Chill Media Inc., and a cross-motion by Chill Media Inc. for leave to late file expert reports.

The court found that Chill Media Inc. had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs but did not establish impecuniosity in the legal sense.

The court dismissed Chill Media's argument of delay by Brewers Retail Inc. in bringing the motion.

The motion for security for costs was granted, but for a reduced amount of $100,000 (from $352,000), payable within 60 days, without staying the action.

The cross-motion for late filing of expert reports was also granted, allowing Chill Media Inc. to file reports within 20 days, with Brewers Retail Inc. having 60 days for reply reports.

The applicant brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the respondent, an estate trustee.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the respondent had made good faith efforts to comply with a previous order.

The court then considered costs, noting the respondent's offer to settle closely matched the decision.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's partial and substantial indemnity costs, totaling $21,766.76.

The court declined to order the estate to pay the remainder of the respondent's full indemnity costs, citing some faults on the respondent's part, but primarily emphasizing the unnecessary nature of the applicant's motion.

The appellant, a dermatological clinic, appealed the dismissal of its defamation action against a respondent who posted negative online reviews claiming the laser resurfacing treatments caused volume loss to her face.

The motion judge dismissed the action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that while the appellant met the threshold under section 137.1(4)(a)(ii) by showing a reasonable trier could view the respondent's claims as factual statements rather than protected opinion, the appellant failed to satisfy the balancing test under section 137.1(4)(b) by not establishing that the harm suffered was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the respondent's expression.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion and the granting of the defendants' cross-motion to discharge a caution on a residential property, the defendants sought costs.

The defendants claimed they were entirely successful and that the plaintiffs' motion was unreasonable.

The court agreed the defendants were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the request for substantial or actual indemnity costs due to a lack of evidentiary support regarding the plaintiffs' conduct.

The court fixed the costs at $8,000, noting that the 59.2 hours billed by five lawyers, a student, and a clerk was excessive for the motion.

The plaintiffs sought orders for payment of funds into court and a vesting order against the defendants' property (26 Merrittonia Street) to secure potential judgment for breach of contract related to a failed real estate transaction for a different property (14 Annual Circle).

The plaintiffs had also registered a Caution against the Merrittonia property.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to discharge the Caution, declare no plaintiff interest in the property, and seek leave to issue a third-party claim.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding they had no interest in the Merrittonia property to support a Caution or vesting order, and their claim was for damages, not a specific fund.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, ordering the discharge of the Caution and granting leave for the third-party claim.