Rebecca Akong

This costs decision follows the dismissal of both the plaintiff’s action and the defendant’s counterclaim in a dispute over a right-of-way between neighbouring commercial properties.

The Canadian Dental Hygienists Association (CDHA) sought costs for both the trial and a prior motion.

The court found that CDHA was the successful party and awarded it $35,000 in costs, all-inclusive, payable by Ms. Layton.

The decision reviews the relevant legal principles, including the discretion of the court under the Courts of Justice Act and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and applies the cost limits under the Simplified Procedure.

This simplified trial concerned a dispute between neighboring commercial properties regarding the scope of a right-of-way over a laneway and associated damage claims.

The plaintiff sought a full right-of-way and damages, while the defendant asserted a limited right-of-way and counterclaimed for damages.

The court found that the right-of-way was limited to a partial section of the laneway as established by a Land Titles Act order, rejecting claims for a full prescriptive easement or expansion based on by-laws or nuisance.

All damage claims from both parties were dismissed due to mutual fault in escalating the dispute and a lack of proven financial loss.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed a civil action brought by Stephen Massey, purportedly also on behalf of his two daughters (J.M. and C.M.), against 31 defendants including the Children's Aid Society, the Office of the Children's Lawyer, various lawyers, and his ex-wife.

The claim, a collateral attack on prior family law proceedings that concluded in 2016, alleged child abuse and professional misconduct.

The court dismissed the action against Mr. Massey with prejudice due to his failure to attend case conferences, non-compliance with court orders, and the action being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, largely barred by the limitation period.

The claim on behalf of J.M. and C.M. was dismissed without prejudice, acknowledging potential discoverability issues and the uncertainty of their authorization.

The court imposed a leave requirement for Mr. Massey to initiate future proceedings against these defendants and awarded costs against him.