Robert Shour

In an estate litigation matter challenging the validity of a will, two individuals brought a motion to be added as applicants, and the respondent brought a motion for security for costs.

The court granted leave to add the new parties, finding no prejudice to the respondents that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for security for costs, noting that in estate matters, such orders are rarely granted based solely on an applicant residing outside Ontario unless the claim is frivolous or vexatious.

The vendor of an apartment building appealed its property tax assessment and subsequently sold the property.

After closing, the assessment appeal succeeded, resulting in a tax refund that the City paid to the purchaser pursuant to s. 306(2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The vendor sought the refund, arguing unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal held that the right to the refund was a chose in action that did not run with the land and was not assigned to the purchaser.

The Court further held that s. 306(2) is merely an administrative provision and does not provide a juristic reason for the purchaser to retain the refund.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment interpreting a contractual provision that reduced payments to a departing shareholder who took business from the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation, finding it gave commercial efficacy to the provision.

However, the Court varied the trial judge's costs order, finding that the minutes of partial settlement precluded the respondent from recovering costs for most claims prior to the settlement date.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding several liability was dismissed.

No costs were awarded for the appeal.