Andrew Rance

Following the dismissal of a guardianship application, the respondents sought costs.

The applicant had abandoned his claims on the eve of the hearing after failing to undermine a court-ordered capacity assessment of his mother.

The court found the applicant's procedural complaints insufficient to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of $100,000 each to his sister and mother on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant brought an application seeking to remove his sister and mother as attorneys for his parents and to be appointed as his father's guardian.

On the eve of the hearing, the applicant abandoned his challenges to his parents' capacity and powers of attorney, instead seeking declarations regarding financial impropriety and an accounting.

The court dismissed the application, finding that without a challenge to capacity or the powers of attorney, there were no cognizable causes of action remaining and the applicant had no legal basis to compel an accounting or seek abstract declarations.

In an insurance coverage action, the parties brought three motions regarding discovery refusals and the examination of a second discovery representative.

The judge determined that the motions were within the jurisdiction of a Master and, pursuant to the Toronto Region Consolidated Practice Direction, transferred the motions to a Master for determination.

The judge also ordered a case conference to address procedural deficiencies and ensure the orderly development of the motions for hearing.

A case management conference was held to schedule an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision involving defamation.

The court noted the appeal had been outstanding for over a year and the respondent was 85 years old, necessitating no further delay.

The court scheduled a one-day virtual hearing via Zoom and provided detailed procedural directions for the electronic filing of appeal materials, factums, and compendiums.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his action under Rule 21(a) on the basis that the contractual provision at issue—a covenant to insure—could be determined as a matter of law.

The Court of Appeal found that Rule 21(a) was improperly applied because the covenant could not be interpreted in isolation from the contract as a whole or in a factual vacuum.

The motion judge did not have the contract itself before him, making it impossible to determine the objective intentions of the parties according to principles of contract interpretation.

The appeal was allowed, the motion judge's order was set aside, and costs were awarded to the appellant.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a successful Rule 21 motion where the defendant struck out the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract and negligence.

The court awarded costs to the successful defendant, affirming the general principle that a successful party is entitled to costs, especially when the matter was resolved early, minimizing legal fees and court resources.

The defendant's proposed costs of $10,000 were found to be fair and reasonable and were not disputed by the plaintiff.

The defendant contractor brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the plaintiff owner's action for faulty workmanship.

The construction contract contained a covenant requiring the owner to purchase property insurance covering damage resulting from defective workmanship and to name the contractor as an insured.

The court held that this covenant to insure operated as a voluntary assumption of risk by the owner, relieving the contractor of liability for damages caused by its negligence or breach of contract.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal against a newspaper, a hospital, and a press council.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success was reasonable.

The Court also dismissed the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness, reasonable apprehension of bias, and systemic oppression against self-represented litigants.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.