Jonathan Keslassy

In a contentious estates proceeding, the court determined costs following an earlier dismissal of the moving party's request for payout of sale proceeds held in trust.

Both sides sought partial indemnity costs and each claimed success, but the court found divided success and held that neither side was completely successful.

Applying Rule 57.01 principles, the court found the amounts sought were excessive in light of proportionality and mixed results.

The court also found litigation conduct by both sides increased costs, while assigning primary responsibility for failing to add the estate party to the estate trustee.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 payable by one responding party to the moving party.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in an action to recover alleged electricity overcharges under a utility supply contract.

The defendant raised a limitation period defence and disputed the cancellation of the contract.

The court dismissed the motion, finding at least eight genuine issues requiring a trial, including discoverability, the calculation of overcharges, and an inadequate evidentiary record.

The applicant sought orders requiring the respondents, Srul Erlich and Tamara Erlich, to undergo capacity assessments and to prevent them from dissipating trust property or their cottage.

The court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable grounds to believe that either Srul or Tamara were incapable or that assessments were required, giving weight to existing medical opinions and the respondents' wishes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability following her termination.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of a parallel civil court action regarding a motorcycle accident in the respondent's parking lot.

The Tribunal denied the request for deferral, finding that the legal issues were distinct and there was no significant risk of inconsistent decisions, as the civil proceeding did not raise issues of discrimination or termination.