John Bruggeman

The successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following the dismissal of the action against her on summary judgment.

The court found that the plaintiffs had made unsubstantiated allegations of fraudulent concealment based on bare suspicion, took shifting positions on the limitation period, and rejected reasonable offers to settle.

The court concluded that this conduct was worthy of sanction and awarded the defendant $45,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis, reducing the claimed amount for proportionality.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim against her on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendant fraudulently concealed her involvement in faulty renovations, delaying the discoverability of their claim.

The court found no evidence of fraudulent concealment and concluded that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of their potential claim against the defendant well before the limitation period expired.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claim against the defendant was dismissed.

The plaintiff, acting through her litigation guardian, brought a motion for an order approving the sale of a property and preserving the net sale proceeds in trust pending further court order.

The defendants opposed the preservation of funds, seeking immediate payout.

The court found that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the plaintiff's capacity at the time of previous property transfers and the validity of a trust declaration.

Given the defendants' breach of an undertaking and the risk of dissipation of funds, the court granted the preservation order under Rules 45.01 and 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ordering the sale proceeds to be held in trust.

The applicant moved for an order determining the sum he must pay the respondent to purchase their jointly owned matrimonial home, effectively seeking to vary a previous order that required the home to be listed for sale.

The parties had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale that failed to close.

The court held that, absent an agreement or a formal motion to vary, it lacked jurisdiction to order a transfer of property to the applicant on new terms.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion but updated the timelines in the previous order to facilitate the sale of the home.

Following a decision on an application regarding a solicitor's retainer agreement, the successful respondent lawyer sought full indemnity costs of $37,420.53.

The applicants argued no costs should be awarded.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the matter was unnecessarily complicated by both sides but the respondent was entirely successful.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs and fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicants, former clients of the respondent lawyer, brought an application to determine whether their retainer agreement authorized the respondent to hire and charge for another lawyer's services.

They also brought motions for civil contempt, alleging the respondent breached prior court orders regarding the filing of affidavits and sealing of documents.

The court found that while specific clauses regarding experts and other lawyers in the firm did not apply, the general authorization clause, combined with the applicants' knowledge and consent, permitted the respondent to retain the other lawyer.

The contempt motions were dismissed as the applicants failed to prove intentional breach beyond a reasonable doubt.

The matter of the specific fees was referred back to the assessment officer.

The plaintiff brought a motion to restore two motor vehicle accident actions to the trial list after they were dismissed by the trial judge for failure to comply with trial management orders.

The Court of Appeal had referred the matters back for reconsideration on a more fulsome record.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion and both actions, finding that the plaintiff remained in intentional breach of previous trial management orders, failed to provide new medical evidence, offered no acceptable explanation for the extraordinary delay (over 15 years for the first action), and failed to demonstrate that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

The court determined costs following competing motions concerning enforcement of minutes of settlement in a family law dispute.

The respondent initially denied the existence of a binding settlement and brought a cross‑motion seeking various interim remedies but ultimately consented to judgment based on handwritten minutes of settlement previously executed by all parties.

The court found that the respondent’s affidavit evidence denying the agreement was inconsistent with her later position and constituted unreasonable litigation conduct that necessitated extensive motion materials and preparation.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principles governing costs awards, the court held that the moving party had been entirely successful and was entitled to costs.

Costs were fixed at $30,000 all-inclusive and ordered payable from settlement funds held in trust.

The defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (representing the Family Responsibility Office), moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiff alleged that the FRO negligently authorized the return of her ex-husband's suspended passport, allowing him to flee the country and evade over $200,000 in support arrears.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the FRO owed a prima facie duty of care to the support recipient and that genuine issues regarding the standard of care and damages required a trial.