Jonathan Collings

The appellant, acting as estate trustee, transferred $400,000 to herself from her late stepfather's estate, claiming it was an inter vivos gift.

The respondent successfully challenged the transfer at first instance.

On appeal, the appellant argued the application judge erred by excluding the stepfather's investment advisor's notes as hearsay and by finding the gift was incomplete.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the exclusion of the notes as double hearsay under the Evidence Act and affirming the finding that the stepfather lacked a continuing intention to make the specific gift.

The plaintiff son brought an action to set aside an agreement to transfer his house to his defendant father and stepmother, claiming he signed it under duress.

The defendants counterclaimed for specific performance of the agreement.

The court found the plaintiff was not a credible witness and dismissed the claim of duress, holding the agreement was valid and enforceable.

However, the court declined to order specific performance, finding the property was not unique to the defendants and damages were an adequate remedy.

The defendants were awarded $48,384.72 in damages for loans, rent, and property expenses, and were ordered to vacate the premises within six months.

The court-appointed Receiver and certain plaintiffs brought motions to interpret or amend a 2017 costs order made by Justice Kane.

The costs order, as drafted, appeared to make Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 396 (CCC 396) jointly and severally liable with the Burdet Group defendants to pay $410,000 in costs to the plaintiffs.

However, the same order also awarded CCC 396 $220,000 in costs payable by the plaintiffs.

The court found that the costs order contained an accidental omission and was inconsistent with Justice Kane's written costs decision.

Applying Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court amended the costs order to explicitly exclude CCC 396 from the defendants liable to pay costs to the plaintiffs.

The defendants sought costs after successfully moving to dismiss the plaintiff's action as an abuse of process.

The court had previously found that the action was commenced under a pseudonym by a declared vexatious litigant who required leave to start an action.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the CBC defendants and another defendant, finding the plaintiff's conduct justified elevated costs.

The court also noted inappropriate submissions made by the plaintiff's counsel.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss a $20 million libel action, alleging the plaintiff was actually a declared vexatious litigant using an alias to circumvent a court order requiring leave to commence proceedings.

The plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with court orders to produce government-issued identification.

The court drew an adverse inference from this failure, concluding the plaintiff was indeed the vexatious litigant using an alias.

The action was dismissed as an abuse of process and for failing to obtain the required leave.

The plaintiffs sued their neighbours for nuisance arising from the installation and use of an outdoor wood-fired boiler that emitted noxious smoke and odours onto their property.

Prior to trial, the defendants agreed to remove the boiler and consented to an injunction prohibiting its future use, leaving only the assessment of damages to be tried.

The court rejected the defendants' preliminary arguments that the action was barred by res judicata from a discontinued Small Claims Court claim and that no actionable nuisance was established.

Finding that the smoke caused a serious and persistent interference with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property, the court awarded general damages of $20,000 to each plaintiff.

The parties brought competing applications regarding the proceeds of two life insurance policies owned by their late mother, and both sought an accounting for the time the other acted as attorney for property.

Following a decision where success was divided on the insurance policies and both parties' misappropriation claims were dismissed for lack of standing, both parties sought costs.

The court found that both parties contributed to the complexity and cost of the litigation by raising issues without legal basis.

Consequently, the court ordered that both parties bear their own costs.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety, or alternatively, to strike specific paragraphs.

The plaintiff, a former union president, claimed constructive dismissal, breach of contract, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and defamation following a prolonged conflict with the defendants.

The court declined to strike the claim as a whole, finding it provided a logical presentation of the conflict and could be responded to.

However, the court struck several specific paragraphs that contained evidence, irrelevant historical facts, or immaterial references to non-parties, granting the plaintiff leave to amend.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's request for leave to assess a solicitor's account, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $7,738.41.

The applicant argued for a lower amount based on proportionality and its own costs outline of $1,899.81.

The court found the applicant's outline did not reflect what a losing party could expect to pay given the extensive record and serious allegations raised.

The court awarded the respondent costs in the all-inclusive amount of $5,000.

The bankrupt, a CPA and CMA, sought a discharge from his second bankruptcy.

The Trustee and a major creditor opposed the discharge, alleging the bankrupt failed to disclose assets, continued to operate his accounting business post-bankruptcy, and failed to perform his duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found the bankrupt was not an honest and unfortunate debtor, having hidden assets, failed to keep proper books, and misled the Trustee.

The court granted a conditional discharge, requiring the bankrupt to pay $325,000 to the Trustee for the benefit of his creditors.

The applicant subtenant sought leave under the Solicitors Act to assess a legal account rendered by the respondent law firm to the landlord.

The applicant had agreed to pay the landlord's legal fees as part of a settlement to transfer the lease after defaulting on rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the application, finding no special circumstances to justify an assessment, as the account was not exorbitant and the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement that required full payment of the legal fees.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover legal ownership of a property she transferred to her defendant daughter in 2012.

The plaintiff argued she did not understand the legal effect of the transfer documents and that the transfer was subject to a resulting trust.

The defendant argued the transfer was a completed gift.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff intended to gift the property while retaining a life interest, and had simply changed her mind years later.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $40,985.14 under Rule 20.06, arguing the plaintiff acted unreasonably by pursuing a partial summary judgment contrary to appellate authority.

The plaintiff argued for costs in the cause or on a partial indemnity basis, and claimed costs thrown away for a prior adjournment.

The court found the motion was unnecessary and contrary to the principles of proportionality, but noted that some of the preparatory work would be useful for the main action.

The court awarded the defendant fixed costs of $15,000, payable at the conclusion of the action.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant general contractor for unpaid work on a construction project.

The general contractor's contract with the owner had been terminated due to delays, and the general contractor alleged the subcontractor contributed to those delays.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring trial because granting partial summary judgment risked inconsistent findings with the main action between the owner and the general contractor, where the subcontractor's role in the delay was a live issue.

The minority unit owners of a commercial condominium brought an action against the majority unit owner, who also served as a director and officer, alleging oppressive conduct under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The majority owner used his voting control to direct condominium contracts and payments to a related corporation, ETRE, without declaring his conflict of interest, and charged the condominium for personal litigation and construction costs.

The court found the majority owner's conduct to be oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, and in breach of his fiduciary duties.

Due to the structural fault in the condominium's voting rights and the ongoing deadlock, the court ordered the termination of the condominium corporation under s. 128 and appointed a receiver to sell the assets.

The court also resolved various financial claims, ordering the minority to pay common expense arrears while dismissing most of the majority owner's claims for penalty charges, promissory notes, and time charges.

The applicant sought a declaration that Property Assessment Change Notices issued for the 2012 and 2013 taxation years were invalid.

The notices added the value of a newly constructed hotel to the property assessment, resulting in significant additional municipal and education taxes.

The applicant argued the assessment corporation could only issue revised assessments where an omission was inadvertent and not where the property was deliberately excluded.

The court held that the governing statute permits reassessment where property has been omitted from the tax roll regardless of the reason for the omission.

The court found the hotel had been omitted due to negligence, error, inadvertence or mistake and upheld the validity of the revised assessments.

The plaintiffs and the court-appointed Administrator brought motions to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the action.

The defendant had obtained the dismissal order ex parte on December 31, 2012, relying on a prior endorsement that required the action to be set down by December 29, 2012.

However, the defendant failed to disclose to the Registrar that the court had subsequently extended the deadline to February 28, 2013.

The court found that the defendant's failure to disclose the extension constituted a material misstatement and that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the action.

The dismissal order was set aside, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving parties.