Kelly C. Tranquilli

The Divisional Court issued an amended costs addendum after mistakenly ordering no costs on a motion for leave.

The responding party, having been successful on the motion, sought $17,747 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found this amount disproportionate given the small amount in issue ($6,610) and noted the matter arose from the responding party's failure to file in time.

Costs were fixed at $2,500.

The appellant lawyer appealed decisions of the Law Society of Ontario finding him incapacitated due to a delusional disorder and suspending him indefinitely.

The appellant had initiated numerous Federal Court actions alleging acquaintances were government spies, leading to him being declared a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the admission of expert psychiatric evidence, the dismissal of motions to call witnesses and admit fresh evidence, or the tribunal's handling of the appellant's arguments.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding parties did not file any materials, no costs were ordered.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party failed to upload costs submissions as required under the Consolidated Practice Direction, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs in the amount of $5,000, with entitlement to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision upholding the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against his ophthalmologist.

The applicant suffered a rare complication following cataract surgery, resulting in loss of sight in his left eye.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's investigation was adequate and the HPARB's decision was reasonable, noting that the ICRC's mandate is to screen complaints, not to determine civil liability or causation.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal three decisions of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding parties failed to upload costs submissions as required under the Consolidated Practice Direction, the court made no order as to costs.

The plaintiffs sought costs after successfully opposing the defendants' motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court decision.

The plaintiffs requested partial indemnity costs of $17,081.81, arguing the defendants engaged in a pattern of delay.

The defendants argued for no costs or partial indemnity costs, citing divided success on a cross-motion to strike affidavit evidence.

The court awarded the plaintiffs their requested partial indemnity costs of $17,081.81, finding the amount reasonable and in accordance with Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

This decision concerns a contested application regarding the guardianship of an incapable adult, Kathleen Power, and the resulting costs order.

The applicant, Karen Skinner, was successful in being appointed as guardian for property and personal care.

The court considered the effect of a prior settlement agreement and the conduct of the parties in determining costs, ultimately awarding full indemnity costs to the applicant, with a portion to be paid from the mother’s estate and the remainder personally by the unsuccessful, self-represented sisters.

The defendants moved for an extension of time to appeal a Deputy Judge's order dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment.

The underlying dispute involved a residential real estate transaction where the plaintiffs alleged active concealment of defects.

The court denied the defendants' request to admit fresh evidence, finding it could have been adduced earlier and was irrelevant.

Applying the factors for extending time to appeal, the court found the defendants failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed period, provided an unsatisfactory explanation for their delay, and lacked a meritorious appeal.

The motion was dismissed.

This decision concerns the sale of a jointly owned residential property following the breakdown of a common law relationship.

The applicant, Cindy Lee Ann Cayen, sought urgent terms for the sale of the home, including an order requiring the respondent, Chad Parish, to vacate the property due to his ongoing non-compliance with previous court orders for sale.

The court found that the respondent had not appealed the orders, had obstructed the sale, and had not provided evidence of a viable plan to purchase the applicant’s interest.

The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property within 21 days and granted the applicant leave to obtain a writ of possession if necessary.

The distribution of sale proceeds was reserved.

This sentencing decision concerns L.M. and B.W., who were found guilty after trial of failing to provide the necessaries of life to L.M.'s six-year-old daughter, C.M., after she suffered serious burns.

B.W. was also convicted of aggravated assault for causing the burns by spraying hot water on C.M. The court reviews the circumstances of the offences, the backgrounds of the offenders, the impact on the victim, and the applicable sentencing principles.

B.W. received a global sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment, and L.M. received a 14-month conditional sentence followed by probation.

The decision discusses the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in cases involving child victims and the increased maximum sentences for these offences.

The court sentenced Clay Kuzio for dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death, following a fatal high-speed collision.

The court reviewed the tragic circumstances, the impact on the victim’s family, the offender’s background, and the relevant sentencing principles.

After weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, the court imposed a 42-month custodial sentence and a driving prohibition, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and the need for a proportionate, individualized sentence.

The accused was tried on one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual exploitation involving his niece over a period when she was a teenager.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence about eight incidents, despite some inconsistencies, and found her testimony credible and reliable in light of her age at the time, the passage of time, and the dynamics of the relationship.

The judge found that some acts occurred when she was under 16 and therefore legally incapable of consenting, and that later acts occurred while the accused was in a position of trust or authority that negated any apparent consent and supported the exploitation charge.

The accused was found guilty on both counts of the indictment.

After a five-day judge-alone trial, James Nathan McLarnon was found guilty of sexual assault, multiple counts of assault with a weapon, assault with choking, assault, uttering threats to cause death, and unlawful confinement, all arising from intimate partner violence against the same complainant, M.C., between 2020 and 2021.

The Crown sought a seven-year global sentence; the defence proposed three years.

The court imposed a global sentence of five and a half years, reduced by pre-sentence custody and a modest "Duncan" credit for harsh pre-trial conditions, resulting in a final sentence of two years and 234 days.

The decision details the aggravating and mitigating factors, the application of the totality principle, and the ancillary orders imposed.

The third parties moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third party claim brought by the defendants, Michael Gillis and Julie Joanisse Gillis, against their financial advisors and firm.

The court found that the causes of action arose before and during the defendants’ bankruptcy and thus vested in the trustee in bankruptcy.

The claims were not transferred back to the defendants and were also found to be statute-barred.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the third party claim and struck the action as a nullity.

The applicant, Grant Allen McDonald, sought a declaration that the respondent estate trustees breached an agreement of purchase and sale after a fire destroyed the subject property before closing.

The applicant wanted to proceed with the sale, subject to a guarantee of minimum insurance proceeds.

The court found that the applicant’s insistence on a guaranteed amount of insurance proceeds constituted a repudiation of the agreement, entitling the respondents to terminate the agreement and retain the deposit.

The application for specific performance or relief from forfeiture was dismissed.

The defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a psychological assessment and for leave to serve the resulting report after the expert report deadline, in the context of a personal injury action arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision.

The court granted the motion, finding that both parties bore responsibility for the lack of an expert report schedule and that fairness required the defendants be permitted to respond to the plaintiff’s psychological claims.

The court also granted leave for late service of the report, provided it was served by April 4, 2025, and encouraged the parties to resolve costs.

The plaintiffs sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring a motion for partial summary judgment in an intellectual property dispute regarding the enforcement of a confidential settlement agreement.

The defendants opposed, arguing that the enforceability of the agreement's no-challenge clause raised unsettled public policy issues requiring a full trial record.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that partial summary judgment would likely increase costs, cause further delay, and was an inappropriate mechanism to resolve the complex legal and public interest issues surrounding the no-challenge clause.

Following a summary judgment motion where the plaintiffs were successful against the personal defendants but unsuccessful against the corporate defendants, the plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs based on a Rule 49 offer.

The defendants argued for a set-off of costs due to the mixed success.

The court found that the claims against all defendants arose from the same debt and circumstances, making it just for the unsuccessful personal defendants to pay all the plaintiffs' costs.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs of $30,370.49, allowing the personal defendants to claim a portion from the corporate defendants at the final disposition.