Liza C. Sheard

This costs decision follows a lengthy guardianship and estate litigation between Edi Ferritto and her brother, Alfredo Ferritto, regarding their mother Lucia Ferritto.

The court reviews the procedural history, the parties' conduct, and the applicable legal principles for awarding costs.

Edi Ferritto, as the successful party, is awarded substantial indemnity costs for the trial and partial indemnity costs for the applications and motions, with certain reductions.

The decision details the calculation of fees and disbursements, and the rationale for the scale of costs awarded.

This costs decision follows a summary judgment motion by Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) against 1108135 Ontario Inc. operating as Trends Décor and Roger Alonzo.

The court apportioned costs after finding the corporate defendant liable for both debts and Mr. Alonzo liable only for the Business Operating Line.

The court fixed costs at $11,475.35, payable jointly and severally by the defendants, after considering the parties’ relative success and the reasonableness of the costs claimed.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, moved for summary judgment against the defendants regarding a Business Operating Line (BOL) and a Visa Credit Card.

The corporate defendant admitted liability, but Roger Alonzo disputed personal liability.

The court found Mr. Alonzo personally liable for the BOL debt but not for the Visa debt, as the evidence did not establish that he agreed to personal liability for the Visa.

The court granted judgment accordingly and addressed costs based on the mixed outcome.

The decision addresses a motion by Jigar Vijaykumar Patel to extend the time for delivering costs submissions and the determination of costs following an unsuccessful motion to set aside a prior order.

The court grants the extension without costs and fixes costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that Jigar’s conduct, while not egregious, merited an elevated scale due to an attempt to mislead the court.

This costs decision follows the dismissal of an application by 2811230 Ontario Limited to delete an Order to Comply from title to its property.

The court awards elevated costs to the City of Niagara Falls, finding the application was without merit and brought for an improper motive, and that the applicant's conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding.

This costs decision follows an application under the Partition Act for the sale of two jointly owned properties.

The applicant, Tara-Lee Daniel, sought and was granted an order for the sale of the properties, with the only contested issue at the hearing being the terms of sale for a cottage property.

The court awarded Daniel full indemnity costs and awarded the intervening neighbours partial costs, finding the respondents' opposition to be without merit and their conduct to have unnecessarily increased costs.

The court considered whether an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a commercial property remained valid after the buyer failed to waive conditions by the deadline.

The buyer argued the seller had waived strict reliance on deadlines and sought specific performance.

The seller moved for summary judgment, asserting the APS had terminated automatically.

The court found the APS terminated on its terms when the buyer failed to provide the waiver, and that the seller had not waived its rights.

The seller’s summary judgment motion was granted, and the buyer’s request for specific performance was dismissed.

This costs decision addresses the aftermath of a motion/application in which the applicants sought to convert an application to an action, amend parties, and obtain interim relief regarding property.

The court declined to fix costs for the entire application, limiting its award to the motion before it.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) was awarded partial indemnity costs, while no costs were awarded as between the applicants and the Quddus respondents due to mixed success.

The decision reviews the principles governing costs, including the principle of indemnity, reasonableness, and the impact of consent adjournments.

The applicant, Linda Kulchycki, sought to reinstate a 2008 power of attorney and codicil executed by her mother, Mary Kulchycki, and to set aside new powers of attorney and a will executed by Mary in 2020.

Linda alleged conflicts of interest and improper conduct by the respondents, Nancy and Diana Kulchycki, and the lawyer involved in the 2020 documents.

The court found that Linda provided no evidence of incapacity, undue influence, or mismanagement, and that a will challenge is premature while the testator is alive.

The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded against Linda.

This costs decision follows the successful application by Deborah Lynn Ferris for the removal of her brother, Christopher Ferris, as co-estate trustee of their late father's estate.

The court reviews the parties' submissions and the applicable legal principles, ultimately awarding full indemnity costs to the applicant, with a blended order requiring Christopher Ferris to pay 75% of the applicant's costs and the balance to be paid from the estate.

The court finds Christopher Ferris's conduct to be worthy of sanction and characterizes it as reprehensible and outrageous.

This is a costs decision following a trial regarding payment of four invoices for accounting services.

The plaintiff, Bazar McBean LLP, succeeded in obtaining judgment for three of the four invoices against the corporate defendant and its principal, Brian Alger.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff but reduced the amount sought, reflecting the plaintiff’s lack of success on its interest claim and the defendants’ partial success.

The decision discusses the application of Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the impact of settlement offers.

The court considered an application by Tara-Lee Daniel for the partition and sale of two properties co-owned with Michael Angelo Rizzo, following the end of their relationship.

The main issue was whether the sale order for the Trent Lakes property should require any purchaser to cooperate in granting a right-of-way to neighbouring properties, as set out in a prior agreement (Schedule "C").

The court found that including this term was fair and necessary to avoid uncertainty and facilitate the sale, and granted the order for sale with the requested provision.

The applicant, 2811230 Ontario Limited, sought an order deleting the registration of an Order to Comply (OTC) from title to its property in Niagara Falls, arguing that the OTC prevented sale or refinancing.

The City opposed, maintaining the OTC was properly registered to notify the public of unpermitted construction.

The court denied the applicant’s request for an adjournment and ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the OTC remained valid and that its registration served the public interest in consumer protection and safety.

The court held that the applicant’s objective was to conceal the OTC from prospective buyers or mortgagees, contrary to the Act’s purpose.

The plaintiff, Bazar McBean LLP, sought judgment against the defendants, 1583057 Ontario Inc. (operating as The Pop Shoppe) and its principal Brian Alger, for unpaid accounting invoices.

The court considered whether the claims were statute-barred, the entitlement to payment under the invoices, Mr. Alger’s personal liability, and the entitlement to interest.

The court found that only one invoice was statute-barred, that the plaintiff was entitled to payment for the remaining invoices (with a minor reduction), that Mr. Alger was personally liable, and that interest was to be calculated at the Courts of Justice Act rate, not the contractual rate, due to the parties’ conduct.

The applicants sought to convert an application to an action and amend their pleadings to include claims for misappropriation, a tracing order, a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), punitive damages, and negligence against CIBC's lawyer.

The court granted the conversion to an action (by agreement) and allowed the claims for misappropriation and tracing, finding they arose from existing factual allegations.

However, the court denied adding Zinnatus Salam as a plaintiff due to duplicative proceedings, dismissed the motion for an immediate CPL (though allowed the claim to be pleaded), and rejected claims for punitive damages and negligence against CIBC's lawyer, deeming them new, statute-barred causes of action or lacking factual basis.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion brought by the City of Hamilton, which resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

Following the parties' agreement on costs, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the City of Hamilton an all-inclusive amount of $200,000 for the action and summary judgment motion.

Daniel Hastings was found guilty of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a four-year custodial sentence, while the defence requested a two-year conditional sentence.

The court considered the seriousness of fentanyl trafficking, the offender's lengthy criminal record, and significant mitigating factors including his first trafficking conviction, low-level involvement, and substantial rehabilitation efforts since the offence.

The court found exceptional circumstances, including the offender's commitment to sobriety, employment, and community involvement, justified a conditional sentence.

A global sentence of two years less a day conditional sentence, followed by 18 months probation, was imposed, along with ancillary orders.

The City of Hamilton moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for injuries sustained while cycling on an off-road path adjacent to Stone Church Road East.

The plaintiff, Otto Bello, suffered complete tetraplegia after riding into a culvert.

The City argued the claim was barred by s.44(8) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as the accident occurred on an untravelled portion of a highway.

The court found that clearly marked bicycle lanes were available, and the plaintiff chose an informal, untravelled path.

The court concluded that it was not reasonably foreseeable that cyclists would use the off-road path instead of the provided bicycle lanes, thus granting summary judgment to the City and dismissing the plaintiff's action.

The defendants (Buyers) brought a motion to set aside their noting in default in a claim for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The plaintiff (Seller) had noted them in default after they failed to pay a deposit and complete the property purchase.

The Buyers argued improper service and a plausible defence that the agreement was void ab initio due to non-payment of the deposit.

The court found service was valid, the Buyers' delay in responding was significant and unexplained, and their proposed defence lacked an air of reality regarding liability and damages.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.