Michael Hackl

The applicant, a member of a taxi co-operative, brought an application seeking disclosure of the co-operative's members' list to assist in his bid for election to the board of directors.

After the application was commenced, the applicant complied with the statutory requirement to provide an affidavit, and the co-operative disclosed the list, rendering the main relief moot.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs up to the date of disclosure because the co-operative had not been transparent about the statutory requirements.

The court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to order the disclosure of members' email addresses and telephone numbers, finding that the statute only required disclosure of names and addresses.

On appeal, the court concluded the appellant should have been successful at trial and awarded damages of $438,113 in addition to other relief.

The appellant had made a pre-trial Rule 49 offer to settle for $180,000.

The court determined the appellant was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

However, because a significant portion of the trial involved testing claims the appellant made which the trial judge found to be untrue, and many of those findings were undisturbed on appeal, the costs award was adjusted to reflect that the trial was not an unqualified success for the appellant.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claims for a beneficial interest in the family home or equitable damages for services rendered to his mother, as well as the dismissal of his application to revoke his sister's power of attorney.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge erred in allocating the burden of proof for unjust enrichment by requiring the appellant to prove a 'net benefit'.

Applying the correct framework from Kerr v. Baranow, the Court awarded the appellant $438,113 in equitable damages for domestic services.

The Court also admitted the trial judge's findings of undue influence as fresh evidence and revoked the sister's power of attorney.

The defendant owner in a construction lien action brought a motion for leave under section 56(1) of the Construction Lien Act to join an officer of the plaintiff contractor as a third party.

The proposed third party claim sought contribution and indemnity for allegedly false statutory declarations sworn by the officer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed claims were not true claims for contribution and indemnity related to the plaintiff's lien claim, but rather separate claims for damages that resembled trust claims, which are prohibited from being joined with lien claims under section 50(2) of the Act.

A bankruptcy trustee sought relief under s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in relation to a transfer by an insolvent debtor of her 50% interest in a Toronto property to her business associate.

The court held, on the record before it, that the transferor and transferee were not dealing at arm's length and that one of the transferor's intentions was to defeat her principal creditors, given the surrounding circumstances, the impending bankruptcy, and the treatment of the asset.

However, the court found the valuation evidence insufficient to determine the fair market value of the property at the transfer date and therefore could not decide whether the transaction was a transfer at undervalue.

A summary trial was ordered limited to valuation.

The applicants sought an order under s. 56 of the Personal Property Security Act to discharge a financing statement registered by the respondents asserting a security interest in the applicants’ personal property.

The registration was based on purported unilateral “fee schedules” and invoices claiming millions of dollars for alleged intimidation and unauthorized use of a name.

The court found no security agreement existed and concluded the PPSA registration was filed without colour of right as part of a pseudolegal “OPCA” style scheme.

The court ordered the discharge of the registration and awarded statutory damages of $500 under s. 56(4).

Substantial indemnity costs were ordered and the directing mind of the corporate respondent was held jointly liable with the corporation.

The applicant tenant sought damages for wrongful distress after the respondent landlord changed the locks and seized property for rent arrears.

The landlord counter-applied for rent arrears and property damage.

The court found that while the landlord had a right to distrain due to chronic rent arrears, it failed to prove the distress was executed during daylight hours, rendering it unlawful.

The tenant was awarded $10,000 for wrongful distress.

The landlord was awarded $89,060 for rent arrears, lost rent due to lack of notice, and property remediation costs, resulting in a net award to the landlord.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

During mediation, the insurer offered $17,000 for a full and final settlement.

The applicant accepted the offer two months after the mediator issued a report indicating the mediation had failed.

The insurer argued the offer had expired by operation of law upon the issuance of the mediator's report.

The arbitrator found that the offer remained open for a reasonable time and was validly accepted, concluding that the parties had entered into a binding settlement under subsection 9.1(1) of the Settlement Regulation.

The insurer was ordered to pay the settlement amount and the applicant's expenses.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal of a summary judgment order, the respondents sought costs of the appeal on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Divisional Court found no evidence of bad faith to justify substantial indemnity costs.

Taking into account the quantum of the claim, the costs previously awarded, and the factors set out in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,000 to the respondent Gaydon and $3,500 to the respondent Burger King.