Kaushik Parameswaran

The plaintiffs sought court approval of an infant settlement and disbursement of funds.

The court approved the $58,000 settlement for the infant plaintiff, Bentley Hall, who suffered abuse at school.

However, the court declined to approve the request to pay the net settlement funds into a Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP), ordering them paid into court instead, citing a lack of exceptional circumstances to deviate from Rule 7.09(1).

Furthermore, the court refused to enforce the plaintiffs' contingency fee agreement (CFA) because it was not in writing, as required by the Solicitors Act and its Regulation.

The proposed legal fees were also deemed unreasonable and disproportionate, leading the court to assess and reduce them from $15,461.79 to $11,865 (including HST).

The plaintiff, Baeumler Quality Construction Inc., sought costs after successfully defending a motion by the defendants, the Pirraglias, to strike a construction lien.

The court, having dismissed the Pirraglias' motion, was tasked with determining the quantum of costs.

Baeumler requested $23,002.10 on a partial indemnity scale, while the Pirraglias proposed $7,500.

Considering factors such as proportionality, the stakes, scope, and reasonableness, the court awarded Baeumler $15,000 in costs, noting that the requested amount was too high for a one-issue motion primarily based on documentary evidence, especially given the principal claim was for $34,000.

Concetta Angeloni, through her litigation guardians, successfully moved for directions, an accounting of her deceased husband's management of her property under a Power of Attorney, and an accounting of his estate assets by the Estate Trustee, Maria Lugonia.

The court also granted orders to prohibit dissipation of estate assets and compel document production and examinations.

This endorsement addresses the costs of these motions, which were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis due to the respondents' unreasonable delays and failure to respond to settlement offers.

The applicant, a dependent spouse residing in a long-term care facility, brought a motion for directions and preservation orders against her deceased husband's estate and its beneficiaries.

The deceased had previously severed the joint tenancy of their matrimonial home using a Power of Attorney, sold the home, and transferred funds to himself and his niece (the Estate Trustee).

The court ordered the Estate Trustee to provide an informal accounting of the deceased's management of the applicant's property, her own management of the deceased's property, and her actions as Estate Trustee.

The court also granted an injunction preventing the dissipation of estate assets and ordered the beneficiaries to pay into court any monies received from the deceased or his estate.

Following a simplified procedure trial in a commercial dispute, the court had dismissed both the plaintiff’s claim and the defendants’ counterclaim, except for an order requiring the plaintiff to provide machine access codes to the defendants.

The parties made competing claims for costs, each arguing success and reliance on settlement offers.

The court found the offers irrelevant because neither party achieved a result closer to its offer.

Although both sides were largely unsuccessful and had contributed to the dispute, the court held that the defendants achieved partial success because the ordered delivery of machine codes was critical to operating the equipment.

Costs were therefore awarded to the defendants on a proportional basis.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 19.08(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in a breach of contract action.

The court considered whether the motion was brought without delay, whether the default was reasonably explained, and whether the defendant demonstrated a triable defence.

The defendant asserted he was unaware of the Superior Court action after being served with multiple documents and believed only a Small Claims Court action had been commenced.

The court accepted this explanation and found a potential defence regarding whether the contract permitted recovery of damages for loss of profits beyond specified contractual damages.

The default judgment was set aside and the defendant was permitted to defend, subject to reimbursing the plaintiff for costs thrown away in obtaining the judgment.