Heather Williams

The plaintiff sued the estate of a deceased priest and the Archdiocese for historical sexual assault.

The plaintiff's claim against the estate was dismissed due to the two-year limitation period in the Trustee Act.

The estate then brought a motion to dismiss the Archdiocese's crossclaim for contribution and indemnity, arguing it was also barred by the Trustee Act.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that section 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002 governs claims for contribution and indemnity and prevails over the Trustee Act limitation period, allowing the crossclaim to proceed.

Following the dismissal of an application seeking to enforce a purported settlement agreement, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving parties argued for no costs or a significantly reduced amount, asserting the motion was brought based on a reasonable belief that an open settlement offer existed.

The responding parties sought partial indemnity costs based on their substantial success and the principles governing costs under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that costs should follow the event but reduced the amount claimed due to duplication arising from multiple counsel.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 payable to the respondents.

Following a successful motion setting aside an administrative dismissal and permitting amendments to the statement of claim, the court addressed costs.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs after obtaining substantive relief on the underlying motion.

The court reviewed the parties’ submissions and applied the Rule 57 factors, emphasizing that defendants opposing administrative dismissal motions may face costs exposure depending on the evidentiary record and circumstances.

The court found the moving party’s request reasonable and rejected arguments that insurer involvement should preclude costs.

Costs were fixed at an all‑inclusive partial indemnity amount of $12,500 payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s administrative dismissal for delay and sought leave to amend its statement of claim in a negligence and breach of contract action arising from engineering services related to sewer system upgrades.

The court applied the contextual approach governing the setting aside of administrative dismissals, considering factors such as the explanation for delay, prejudice, and the intention to proceed with the action.

The court accepted that the failure to meet the set-down deadline resulted from inadvertence by counsel and that the plaintiff provided an adequate explanation for litigation delays in a complex, document-heavy matter.

The plaintiff successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice arising from the expiry of a limitation period.

Leave to amend was largely granted as the amendments primarily particularized existing claims, though certain allegations relating to an earlier environmental study report constituted a potential new cause of action and were allowed subject to the defendant’s right to raise a limitation defence.

Following dismissal of a legal negligence action against a lawyer and her firm, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought full indemnity costs after an eight‑day trial, arguing the plaintiff pursued unfounded allegations, including claims impugning the lawyer’s honesty, and continued litigation despite evidence showing no negligence or damages.

The court applied the principles governing costs under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, including the purposes of indemnification, encouraging settlement, and discouraging improper conduct.

Finding the plaintiff advanced serious unsubstantiated allegations, changed evidence at trial, and pursued the action despite knowing it lacked merit, the court held the conduct was exceptional and reprehensible.

Full indemnity costs were therefore awarded.

The plaintiff brought a solicitor negligence claim against her former family lawyer arising from advice provided during the negotiation and execution of a separation agreement.

The plaintiff alleged the lawyer failed to meet the standard of care by not ensuring full financial disclosure, by allegedly mischaracterizing settlement funds from employment litigation, and by permitting a final spousal support release.

The court found that the lawyer repeatedly advised the plaintiff not to sign a final agreement without full financial disclosure and even proposed a partial agreement pending further disclosure, but the plaintiff chose to proceed due to time pressure related to a home purchase.

Expert evidence established that the lawyer’s conduct met the standard of care for family law practitioners in the circumstances.

The court further held that the plaintiff failed to prove causation or damages, as later financial disclosure demonstrated the separation agreement was fair and reasonable.