Julia M. Fischer

The plaintiff brought a motion to sever the defendants' third-party action from her main action for the recovery of a loan.

The main action was a straightforward debt claim, while the third-party action involved complex allegations of misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation against former employees.

The court granted the motion, finding that keeping the actions together would cause unnecessary delay and prejudice to the plaintiff, and that severance would not cause injustice to the defendants or third parties.

In an appeal of a Cancellation Order under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021, the respondent moved to exclude several of the appellant's witnesses due to late disclosure, and non-parties moved to quash summonses issued to them.

The Tribunal limited the appellant to calling seven witnesses as previously ordered and excluded an expert witness for failure to comply with Rule 10 disclosure requirements.

The Tribunal quashed summonses for two OPP officers and another individual as their evidence would be unduly repetitious or irrelevant.

Summonses for one OPP officer and a former employee were upheld, but the directions requiring them to produce records were quashed because the appellant failed to bring a proper motion for third-party records or make prior efforts to obtain them.

The moving parties, Lynn Stewart and Winfield Clayton Stewart, sought a stay of a lower court order pending appeal.

The lower court order had interpreted the will of William Archibald Stewart and authorized the estate trustee to sell two farm properties to satisfy substantial tax liabilities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motions for a stay, finding that the moving parties failed to establish a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured them.

Consequently, the estate trustee remains authorized to proceed with the administration and potential sale of the properties to address the outstanding tax debts.

This decision interprets the will of William Archibald Stewart, focusing on the vesting and abatement of gifts of farm properties to his sons, Robert and Winfield, and the impact of subsequent events including the assignment of a mortgage to William’s widow, Edith, and her own testamentary dispositions.

The court addresses whether gifts vested at William’s death or Edith’s, the effect of the mortgage assignment, the abatement of gifts to pay estate liabilities, and related issues of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, and executor liability for tax consequences.

The applicant surviving spouse elected to receive an equalization payment from her deceased husband's estate rather than taking under his will.

She brought a motion seeking to apply her equalization payment towards the purchase of the matrimonial home, which was owned by the estate and specifically bequeathed to one of the deceased's sons.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a vesting order was not appropriate as there was no concern the estate would fail to pay the equalization amount once its properties were sold.

The court ordered all estate properties to be sold to determine the exact equalization payment, with the remaining net proceeds to be divided among the children on a prorated basis according to the sale prices of their specifically bequeathed properties.

The appellant challenged an application judge's decision concerning a right of way dispute between properties.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding errors of fact or legal errors in the application judge's analysis, noting that the lower court was entitled to resolve evidentiary conflicts.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

This case involved a dispute between neighbouring property owners, William Kranenburg (operating a campground) and Brice and Donna Grice (operating a farm), concerning a shared right-of-way (Laneway).

Kranenburg sued the Grices for nuisance due to gates and trees, seeking punitive damages.

The Grices counter-claimed that Kranenburg had overburdened the Laneway by changing his campground's use from a youth summer camp to a come-and-go trailer park and event space, seeking an injunction and damages for cut trees.

The court found that Kranenburg had indeed overburdened the Laneway, granting the Grices an injunction limiting the Laneway's use to its historical scope.

The court dismissed Kranenburg's nuisance claim against the Grices, finding no substantial interference.

The Grices' counter-claim for nuisance regarding cut trees was also dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

No damages were awarded to either party.

Following a successful motion by the respondent to enforce a settlement regarding farm properties, the respondent and third party sought their costs.

The applicant argued that success was divided and each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful as he obtained the order enforcing the settlement.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to the respondent and $2,500 to the third party.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a travel retailer under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, citing financial concerns and past conduct.

The parties waived a hearing and agreed to a consent order continuing the registration subject to strict conditions, including timely filing of financial statements, responding to Registrar requests, and maintaining positive working capital by a specified deadline.

The applicant brought a motion for further disclosure, and the respondent Jamie McDonald brought a motion to suspend or vary a previous order directing the sale of four jointly owned farm properties.

The court granted the disclosure requests, ordering both sides to produce specified financial and operational records, noting that while some information should have been sought during earlier questioning, it was necessary for trial preparation.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to vary the sale order, finding it was an impermissible attempt to re-litigate an issue he had previously elected not to participate in, and that delaying the sale would be unfair to the applicant.

This endorsement from a trial readiness conference outlines the outstanding issues for the second phase of a bifurcated trial.

The court clarified that a previous 2021 valuation of the home farm was for settlement purposes only and would not govern compensation, and confirmed that the order refusing the sale of the home farm was a final order not to be re-litigated.

The endorsement also set deadlines for disclosure and undertakings motions, identified remaining trial issues including valuation of farm equipment, equalization, support claims, and trust claims, and scheduled further conferences and trial dates.

This motion concerned the sale of five jointly owned farm properties following a marital breakdown.

The applicant sought an order for sale, while the respondents argued that section 11 of the Family Law Act prohibited such a sale for an operating farm.

The court determined that section 11 of the Family Law Act applies to jointly owned farms and that the "home farm" was indispensable to the operation and should not be sold.

However, the court found that the other jointly owned properties could be sold without seriously impairing the farm's operation, and that reasonable alternative methods existed to satisfy any equalization award.

The plaintiff, Tracey Lynn Kirstine, sought costs after successfully obtaining an interlocutory injunction.

The defendants argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge or that their offers to settle should be considered.

The court, applying Rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, determined that an immediate costs award was appropriate, particularly given the defendants' breach of a prior order.

The court awarded the plaintiff $65,000 in all-inclusive costs, with 75% payable jointly and severally by Neil Kirstine and Jeremy Ellis, and the remaining balance split equally and severally among Tone Valeriote, Christine Brandt, and Donna Sparks.

This decision details the findings from the first portion of a bifurcated trial in divorce proceedings, primarily addressing the valuation of farm properties and farm equipment.

The court also considered the applicant's motion for partition and sale of jointly owned properties.

The judgment provides detailed analysis of expert appraisal methodologies, including fair market value, depreciation, comparable sales, and the influence of factors like drainage and solar panels on property values.

The court made specific findings on the values of seven farm properties and various pieces of equipment as of the marriage, separation, and trial dates.

The decision on the motion for partition and sale was reserved, pending further submissions from the parties regarding the impact of a recent case.

The County sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale for the applicants' abandoned leave to appeal motion regarding the production of records from closed municipal meetings.

The applicants' appeal became moot after closed meeting investigators concluded the meetings were improperly closed, leading the County to release the records.

Although the court found the leave motion would likely have been unsuccessful, it exercised its discretion under Rule 37.09(3) to order no costs due to the County's actions in improperly closing the meetings.

The applicant sought summary judgment to enforce a prior court order and Minutes of Settlement against the respondent regarding the sale of matrimonial property.

The respondent failed to comply with the prior order, did not participate in the motion, and was unable to complete refinancing as per the settlement.

The court found no material facts in dispute and granted summary judgment, ordering the immediate sale of the matrimonial property, police enforcement for vacating, and specific distribution of funds from a $50,000 payment held in trust, including substantial indemnity costs against the respondent for non-compliance.

Following a trial regarding failed real estate transactions where the plaintiff achieved mixed success, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of over $55,000, while the defendant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court awarded the plaintiff discounted partial indemnity costs of $25,000, factoring in the mixed success at trial and the defendant's unreasonable conduct as a landlord.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful application by the respondents.

The respondents, Bart Toby and the Town of Saugeen Shores, sought substantial indemnity costs, or partial indemnity, while Weichold Limited sought partial indemnity.

The applicant argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court determined the matter was not complex or novel and awarded partial indemnity costs to all respondents, noting that an offer to settle by Toby and Saugeen Shores, though served too late for full substantial indemnity, would have avoided the hearing.

The Superior Court of Justice rendered a decision on costs following a trial where the plaintiff, Huron Bay Co-operative Inc. (HBC), obtained judgment against Mar-Bo Farms Inc. but had its claim dismissed against individual defendants Andrew Philip Needham and Michael Robert Needham.

The court considered the defendants' non-Rule 49 offer to settle, which mirrored the trial's outcome regarding the individual defendants' liability.

The plaintiff sought a Sanderson order, requiring Mar-Bo to pay the individual defendants' costs, which was denied.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,600.00 to Andrew and Michael Needham, payable by HBC, reducing the requested amount by 50% due to the individual defendants' "unclean hands" and their weak set-off claims that prolonged the trial.