Glenroy Kendal Bastien

The case concerns the final steps of a reference hearing to determine the distribution of proceeds from the sale of a corporate property following a winding-up order.

Key issues included the proper calculation and payment of Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) taxes, responsibility for a mortgage on the property, and the final determination of costs.

The court accepted the applicant's accountant's tax filings over the respondent's, found the deceased shareholder solely responsible for the mortgage, and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant due to the respondent's persistent opposition and the complexity of the case.

The remaining funds in court were ordered to be paid to CRA first, with the remainder going to the applicant, as the respondent's share was in a negative position.

The plaintiff's action against the defendants was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the costs payable by the plaintiff, Ms. Liddy, to the defendant, Ms. Mauro.

Ms. Mauro sought substantial indemnity costs of over $650,000, or partial indemnity then substantial indemnity costs of over $613,000, based on Ms. Liddy's unreasonable conduct, rejection of settlement offers, and pursuit of unsubstantiated allegations, including punitive damages.

Ms. Liddy argued for partial indemnity costs at no more than 50% of Ms. Mauro's fees, blaming the City of Vaughan defendants for delays and a mistrial.

The court found Ms. Mauro's offers reasonable and Ms. Liddy's conduct, particularly the persistent punitive damages claim without evidentiary support, reprehensible.

The court awarded Ms. Mauro $585,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, assessed on a partial indemnity scale until the start of trial and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

The court issued an endorsement following a case conference regarding whether an examination for discovery should proceed remotely by videoconference or in person during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiffs objected to a remote examination, citing concerns about assisting counsel, assessing witness demeanor, lack of solemnity, and potential for abuse.

The court, applying Rule 1.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ordered the examination to proceed by videoconference, emphasizing the imperative of technological competency and the need to avoid litigation delays, finding that the benefits of proceeding remotely outweighed the perceived risks.

The appellant brought two motions seeking to review orders relating to security for costs, an extension of time to perfect its appeal, and a dismissal of the appeal for delay.

The underlying action involved allegations that the respondent bank was negligent for failing to notify the appellant of fraud suspicions communicated by a Polish bank.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal set aside the security for costs order, the order denying a further extension of time, and the Registrar's dismissal of the appeal, granting the appellant a final extension to perfect its appeal.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his application for certiorari to quash decisions by two Justices of the Peace who refused to issue process on private informations for fraud under $5,000.

The appellant had previously commenced a civil action against the same individuals, which was dismissed and settled.

The Justices of the Peace declined to issue process on various grounds, including lack of prima facie case, expiration of limitation periods, and absence of reasonable prospect of conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no jurisdictional error by either Justice of the Peace and noting that the Crown would have been duty-bound to withdraw any charges issued.

The applicant, Mr. Adeniji, sought to set aside or vary a consent order requiring him to pay $20,000 in security for costs, alleging fraud by the respondent, Ms. Segbaya, and a change in circumstances (impecuniosity) caused by her actions.

Ms. Segbaya moved to dismiss Mr. Adeniji's application for his failure to pay the security for costs.

The court found that Mr. Adeniji failed to prove his impecuniosity or that Ms. Segbaya caused it, citing inconsistencies and lack of evidence.

Consequently, Mr. Adeniji's motion to set aside/vary was dismissed, and Ms. Segbaya's motion to dismiss Mr. Adeniji's application for non-compliance with the security for costs order was granted.

The court also ordered the release of funds Ms. Segbaya had paid into court and awarded costs to Ms. Segbaya.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a family arbitration award arising from minutes of settlement reached during mediation, while the respondent moved to set aside the settlement and award.

The respondent alleged she lacked the capacity to understand the agreement due to medication and anxiety during the mediation.

The court held that the respondent failed to establish incapacity or that the applicant had knowledge or constructive notice of any incapacity at the time of settlement.

The psychological evidence did not establish that the respondent was incapable of understanding the proceedings.

The court therefore enforced the arbitration award and dismissed the motion to set aside the minutes of settlement.

The appellant appealed a conviction for criminal harassment, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, failed to provide meaningful reasons, and improperly applied the credibility framework from R. v. W.D. The appeal court reviewed the record and found the trial was straightforward, with credibility as the central issue.

The trial judge rejected the appellant’s theory that the complainants fabricated allegations to interfere with a firearms licence appeal and found the appellant’s testimony not credible.

The court held that the trial judge properly applied the W.D. framework and provided reasons grounded in the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.