John Stanley Jenkins

This is an appeal of an order made by Kwolek J. of the Ontario Court of Justice, which stayed a costs order under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The original costs order was issued by Kukurin J., who had presided over the trial and remained seized of the costs proceedings.

The Superior Court of Justice found that Kwolek J. lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion to stay the costs order because Kukurin J. was still seized of the matter.

Consequently, Kwolek J.'s order was quashed.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the defendants to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the plaintiff's uncooperative and offensive conduct, and in the case of one defendant, malicious and unsubstantiated allegations.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples and associated individual defendants, reducing the quantum due to excessive claims and the nature of a pleadings motion.

Legal Aid Ontario received its claimed modest costs.

Carita Wong was awarded substantial indemnity costs, fixed at a reduced amount, due to the plaintiff's outrageous, unjustified, and malicious allegations against her as a professional, serving as a deterrent.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay all awarded costs within 30 days.

The plaintiff, a former law student, sued his articling principal for professional negligence and the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) for regulatory failures after his articling position was terminated two weeks into the year.

Both defendants brought motions under Rule 21 to strike the Statement of Claim for failing to state a cause of action.

The court struck the claim against LSUC without leave to amend, finding it immune under section 9 of the Law Society Act and that the plaintiff failed to plead bad faith or gross negligence.

The claim against the articling principal was struck with leave to amend, as it lacked sufficient material facts to support a professional negligence claim, though a theoretical cause of action was possible.

No costs were awarded due to the plaintiff's circumstances.

The applicant sought an order discharging a lien registered by Legal Aid Ontario against a matrimonial home that had later vested in her pursuant to a family law judgment.

She argued the lien was void ab initio because it did not state a specific monetary amount, contrary to s. 48 of the Legal Aid Services Act, 1996 and provisions of the Land Titles Act.

The respondent maintained that the lien properly described the obligation as securing the full and actual cost of legal aid services provided pursuant to a contribution agreement with the applicant’s former spouse.

The court held that the contribution agreement contemplated payment of the full actual costs of services, with $5,000 being merely an estimate rather than a cap, and that the lien’s description therefore complied with the statutory requirements.

As the lien predated the vesting order and was validly registered, it could not be removed absent satisfaction of the debt.

In a matrimonial proceeding involving ownership of a cottage property, the moving parties sought to add Legal Aid Ontario as a party because it had registered liens against the property to secure legal aid services provided to one spouse.

The court considered the test under Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules for adding a party.

It held that a person will generally only be added if they are a necessary party and if an order can be made for or against them, although the court retains a narrow discretion to add parties without a legal interest in exceptional circumstances.

Because no order could be made for or against Legal Aid Ontario, it had no involvement in the underlying matrimonial dispute, and no unusual or egregious circumstances existed, the court declined to add it as a party.

A former lawyer sought declarations that payments from Legal Aid Ontario to his solicitor account constituted “wages” under the Wages Act and were therefore largely exempt from garnishment to satisfy a judgment debt.

He also requested an accounting of funds remitted pursuant to a notice of garnishment and access to Legal Aid’s billing system.

The court held that payments made to a self‑employed lawyer for Legal Aid work are not “wages” within the meaning of the Wages Act, drawing an analogy to prior authority holding that physician payments from OHIP are not wages.

The applicant had not properly brought a motion to vary the garnishment and the statutory framework did not support the requested retroactive relief.

The court also found that Legal Aid Ontario had already provided a full and adequate accounting of payments applied toward the garnishment.