Joseph Bisceglia

Following a successful motion brought by the applicant, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis, while the respondent argued that no costs should be ordered.

The court held that although the applicant succeeded, the respondent’s position was not entirely without merit and there was no egregious conduct justifying full indemnity costs.

Taking into account the complexity of the motion, the preparation required, and certain duplication of work by counsel, the court awarded partial indemnity costs with limited recoverable work.

The respondent husband brought a motion to set aside Minutes of Settlement and a subsequent court order, arguing he lacked capacity, the applicant wife failed to disclose her pension, and the agreement was unconscionable.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the husband understood the agreement, the wife had disclosed the pension, and the settlement was not unconscionable as it reflected a fairly negotiated compromise between the parties.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it had made a false representation of fact when calling on a letter of credit.

The trial judge found the appellant called the letter of credit to replace it with cash as a security deposit, rather than for arrears owing.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding was unreasonable and contrary to the evidence, which established the respondent bank knew the letter of credit was obtained to satisfy a security deposit requirement.

The action was dismissed.