Kim Ferreira

The applicants sought a declaration that their default judgment against the respondent survived his bankruptcy discharge under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The judgment arose after the respondent's real estate lawyer mistakenly paid him sale proceeds that were supposed to be held in trust to discharge a mortgage.

The respondent misappropriated the funds, spent them on personal items, and later declared bankruptcy without listing the applicants as creditors.

The court granted the application, finding that the respondent acted in a fiduciary capacity regarding the mistakenly received trust funds and that his misappropriation meant the debt survived his bankruptcy.

Following a successful Rule 21 motion striking the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, the defendant sought costs of approximately $32,247.

The plaintiff argued the amount was excessive and emphasized his limited financial means, reliance on social assistance, and mental health challenges preventing stable employment.

The court reviewed the principle of reasonableness governing costs awards and the jurisprudence on whether a party’s impecuniosity may be considered.

The court concluded the claimed amount was excessive and determined that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to consider the plaintiff’s financial hardship.

Exercising its discretion, the court declined to award any costs.

The plaintiff, who was acquitted of manslaughter in a judge-alone trial, sued the Attorney General for malicious prosecution.

The Attorney General had previously attempted to override the plaintiff's election for a judge-alone trial without providing reasons, which the criminal trial judge found to be an abuse of process.

The Attorney General moved to strike the civil claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts establishing that the prosecution was continued without reasonable cause or motivated by malice, noting that overriding a trial election is a non-core element of prosecutorial discretion outside the scope of malicious prosecution.

Following a successful motion striking the statement of claim against a corporate director, the individual defendant sought costs.

The underlying motion held that directing corporate acts leading to breach of contract is insufficient to establish personal liability unless the director acted without bona fides and outside authority.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the result was mixed because leave to amend had been granted.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale as the moving parties were the successful parties and the amount sought was reasonable.