Samuel Kazen

This was a costs decision following dismissal of an application for partition and sale of jointly held property, with a prior order requiring the respondents to pay the applicant $13,000 from any future sale or refinancing.

The applicant sought costs up to the date of the respondents' settlement offer, but the court held the respondents were wholly successful on the real issue: preserving the property's equity and restraining enforcement of bare legal title.

Applying the fair and reasonable costs principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, the court fixed the respondents' costs at $13,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court set that amount off against the applicant's prior $13,000 recovery so that the formal judgment would simply declare the respondents' ownership and dismiss the applicant's claims.

The applicant sought a partition and sale of a property he purchased with his brother-in-law in 1993 under a trust agreement.

The applicant moved out in 1996 and stopped contributing to the mortgage and expenses, leaving the respondents to carry the property for nearly 20 years.

The court dismissed the application for 50% of the proceeds, applying the equitable doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and waiver, finding it would be fundamentally unfair for the applicant to share in the capital appreciation after standing idly by.

The applicant was awarded only the return of his initial $13,000 down payment upon the future sale or refinancing of the property.