Andrea Hill

This costs decision follows a lengthy guardianship and estate litigation between Edi Ferritto and her brother, Alfredo Ferritto, regarding their mother Lucia Ferritto.

The court reviews the procedural history, the parties' conduct, and the applicable legal principles for awarding costs.

Edi Ferritto, as the successful party, is awarded substantial indemnity costs for the trial and partial indemnity costs for the applications and motions, with certain reductions.

The decision details the calculation of fees and disbursements, and the rationale for the scale of costs awarded.

The appellant purchased a property six years after its first occupation and discovered significant water penetration and structural issues in the basement.

Before notifying Tarion, the appellant undertook extensive excavations and repairs costing over $250,000.

The Tribunal found that while two issues (an inadequately supported LVL beam and a knee wall) constituted major structural defects under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, the appellant's claim must fail.

By undertaking extensive self-help repairs before contacting Tarion, the appellant denied Tarion its statutory right to inspect the defects and determine the necessary scope of repairs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding a claim for indemnity by Tarion Warranty Corporation.

The central issue was whether Tarion's claim was caught by s. 18 of the Limitations Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 18 did not apply because Tarion was not sued.

The limitation period did not begin to run until Tarion paid out money to a third party, meaning the claims were brought within the applicable limitation period.

The moving defendants, a lawyer and law firm acting for a mortgagee in a mortgage enforcement proceeding, brought a motion under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the amended statement of claim alleging improper withholding of surplus proceeds following a power of sale.

The plaintiff alleged the lawyers attempted to extort a release by withholding trust funds and sought damages for abuse of process, negligence, and breach of ethical duties.

The court held that opposing counsel owe no duty of care or fiduciary duty to an adverse party and that alleged breaches of professional or ethical duties are owed to the court and the governing law society, not to opposing litigants.

As a result, the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious.

The impugned portions of the claim against the lawyer and law firm were struck.

The appellant appealed an order striking out his statement of defence for failing to pay $3,900 in interlocutory costs.

The motion judge had ruled that impecuniosity was not a valid excuse for failing to comply with costs orders.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by failing to consider impecuniosity as a relevant factor.

Striking the defence and exposing the self-represented appellant to a judgment of over $180,000 was a disproportionate response.

The statement of defence was reinstated on the condition that the costs be paid within a year.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for the costs of correcting a stone embankment that was not erected in accordance with a site plan agreement, as well as costs of the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on liability and damages, noting the embankment was unstable and unsafe.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the trial judge erred in her discretion, and reduced the trial costs award from $102,981.64 to $60,000.

Following a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Ontario Racing Commission convened a hearing to consider applications by ten horsemen seeking orders to permit them to enter horses and access Sudbury Downs Raceway.

The applicants had previously been excluded by Sudbury Downs under the Trespass to Property Act following their participation in boycotts organized by the Ontario Harness Horse Association.

The Commission found that while some applicants had engaged in disruptive conduct in the past, the public interest favoured allowing them to return to racing.

The Commission ordered that two applicants be granted full access, while the remaining eight be granted access subject to specific time limitations and conditions regarding future conduct.