Lorne Levine

In a contentious estates proceeding, the court determined costs following an earlier dismissal of the moving party's request for payout of sale proceeds held in trust.

Both sides sought partial indemnity costs and each claimed success, but the court found divided success and held that neither side was completely successful.

Applying Rule 57.01 principles, the court found the amounts sought were excessive in light of proportionality and mixed results.

The court also found litigation conduct by both sides increased costs, while assigning primary responsibility for failing to add the estate party to the estate trustee.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 payable by one responding party to the moving party.

The defendants by counterclaim brought a motion for partial summary judgment on a counterclaim arising from a complex business relationship involving a share purchase agreement and related transactions.

The defendants argued the counterclaim was statute-barred and that there was no evidence establishing liability.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the limitation period due to the ongoing interrelated dealings between the parties that continued into 2019.

The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim against four individual defendants but allowed the counterclaim to proceed against the remaining corporate defendants, finding genuine issues requiring trial regarding commissions owed and the interrelated nature of the business relationships.

The defendant, Mark Andre Dajka, moved to dismiss a six-year-old action for delay under rules 24.01(1)(c) and 48.14(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that while the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, there was insufficient evidence of prejudice to the defendant’s ability to have a fair trial.

The motion to dismiss was therefore denied, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff by counterclaim discontinued its action against a defendant by counterclaim, who had been named solely because he appeared as a director in government records.

The released defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the defendant was entitled to costs for his continued participation, the plaintiff by counterclaim was not entirely at fault for relying on the government records.

Costs were awarded to the released defendant fixed at $8,300 on a partial indemnity basis.

The Appellant Mother appealed a child protection order that placed her child in the Father's custody with supervised access for the Mother.

The Mother alleged denial of procedural fairness, errors in admitting child's hearsay statements, allowing an expert to testify beyond his expertise, and an erroneous discretionary access order.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, proper handling of child's statements, appropriate expert testimony, and valid discretionary access order under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The plaintiff real estate agent and brokerage sued the defendant homeowners and their neighbour for unpaid commission on the sale of a multimillion-dollar property.

The homeowners had signed multiple listing agreements but ultimately sold the property privately to a buyer introduced by the neighbour.

The court found that the buyer was introduced to the property during the term of the second listing agreement, triggering the holdover clause, and that a valid offer was made during the term of the third listing agreement.

The court also found that the neighbour induced the homeowners to breach their contract with the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs were awarded the full commission amount.

The plaintiffs' home was severely damaged by a fire while undergoing renovations.

The plaintiffs alleged the fire was caused by the spontaneous combustion of stain-soaked rags left by the defendant painting subcontractor, and sought to hold the general contractor vicariously liable.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the cause of the fire on a balance of probabilities, accepting the painter's evidence that he did not leave rags in the home and noting that electrical arcing could not be ruled out as a cause.

The court declined to draw an adverse inference against the defendants for failing to call another fire investigator.

The action was dismissed, though damages were assessed at $1,348,939.91 in the alternative.

This decision addresses a request for costs brought by the father (K.D.) against the mother (P.D.) following a child protection trial.

The trial found the child in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother, and custody was granted to the father.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting that the presumption of costs for a successful party does not apply in child protection cases.

While the mother's litigation conduct was deemed unreasonable and prolonged the trial, the court found it did not constitute "bad faith" under Rule 24(8) because her actions stemmed from a fixed belief related to a personality disorder, rather than an intent to inflict financial or emotional harm.

Consequently, the father was awarded partial indemnity costs, significantly less than the full recovery sought, reflecting the mother's unreasonable behaviour but not bad faith.

The children's aid society brought a protection application seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother.

Following the parents' separation, the mother repeatedly made unfounded allegations that the father was sexually and physically abusing the child, subjecting the child to numerous police and medical investigations.

The court found that the mother's fixed, false belief system and coaching caused the child severe anxiety and emotional harm.

The court concluded the child was in need of protection, granted sole custody to the father, and ordered that the mother's access be supervised.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a child protection application seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother's actions.

The mother had made repeated unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father, subjected the child to numerous investigations and examinations, and created a high-conflict environment that caused the child serious anxiety and stress.

The court found that the child had suffered emotional harm as a result of the mother's pattern of making false allegations, repeatedly involving authorities, and pressuring the child to make negative statements about the father.

The court granted custody to the father with supervised access to the mother, finding that the mother's personality disorder and fixed belief system made her unable to recognize or change her harmful behavior.

Following a family law trial, the parties were unable to agree on costs, the reconciliation of interim orders, or the release of trust funds.

The court reconciled various advance payments and line of credit withdrawals, crediting them against the respondent's substantial equalization debt.

Due to the respondent's refusal to provide a direction to the real estate lawyer, the court ordered the endorsement to serve as sufficient direction to release the remaining trust funds to the applicant.

Finally, the court awarded the applicant $52,000 in costs, noting the respondent's persistent non-disclosure and obstructionist behaviour.

Following a family law trial, the court addressed equalization, child support, and spousal support after finding persistent and deliberate financial non-disclosure by the respondent concerning foreign assets in Turkey.

Applying adverse inferences and the statutory net family property framework under the Family Law Act, the court included multiple real estate and investment interests that the respondent had failed to properly disclose, including assets held through family members or masked through indirect arrangements.

The court fixed an equalization payment of $621,500, ordered child support only until the child turned 18, and ordered spousal support only to December 31, 2019.

After reconciling prior interim disbursements and post-separation line of credit withdrawals, the respondent's remaining debt was fixed at $458,980.09 after credit for trust funds.

The defendants (Owners) successfully moved for security for costs against the plaintiff (2232117 Ontario Inc.) under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The motion also required leave under subsection 67(2) of the Construction Act.

The plaintiff conceded the threshold onus regarding insufficient assets but argued the order would be unjust due to a meritorious claim and tactical purpose.

The court found the merits neutral and no evidence of tactical purpose.

Considering the equitable imbalance where the Owners had posted security for the plaintiff's lien but had no security for their defence costs, the court found an order for security for costs to be just.

The plaintiff was ordered to post $48,000 in security for costs on a staged basis and pay $4,000 in motion costs.

This is a costs decision in a child protection matter under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society brought a protection application and subsequently moved for summary judgment, which was denied by the court.

The respondent parents sought costs against the Society, alleging unreasonable and unfair conduct.

The court dismissed the costs requests, finding that while the Society was unsuccessful on the summary judgment motion, the threshold for awarding costs against a child protection agency in such circumstances had not been met.

The court applied the established framework requiring a showing that the Society acted in a patently unfair and indefensible manner, which was not established on the facts.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection under section 74(2)(h) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (emotional harm), with no further orders required.

The respondent mother alleged sexual abuse by the father, while the father denied the allegations.

The court denied the summary judgment motion, finding that the Society's evidentiary record was insufficient and contained inadmissible hearsay and opinion evidence.

The court determined that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding both the finding of need of protection and the appropriate disposition.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for damages arising from the defendant's repudiation of an agreement of purchase and sale for real property.

The defendant raised several defenses, including failure to tender, false bidding war, unjust enrichment, and failure to mitigate damages, and requested a stay of execution pending a third-party claim against her real estate agent.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, dismissing all defenses, and refusing to stay the judgment.

The applicant brought a family law proceeding which the respondent argued was statute-barred under s. 7(3)(b) of the Family Law Act.

The respondent claimed the parties separated in 2001, while the applicant claimed they separated in 2009.

The court examined the parties' living arrangements, travel, and communications to determine when they separated with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation.

The court found the parties continued to cohabit until June 30, 2007, meaning the applicant's 2010 proceeding was commenced well within the six-year limitation period.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

At a house party, after the victim attacked him, the defendant repeatedly punched the victim in the head, causing a broken orbital bone requiring plastic surgery and resulting in hospitalization by air ambulance.

The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court rejected both positions and imposed a four-month conditional sentence with house arrest for the first two months, followed by a curfew for two months, and one year of probation.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate to balance denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, particularly given the defendant's youth, lack of criminal record, and positive personal circumstances.

Following settlement of a family law dispute through comprehensive minutes of settlement, the court was asked to determine entitlement and quantum of costs.

The court reviewed the parties’ settlement offers, expert reports, litigation conduct, and the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent spouse had acted in person for part of the proceeding but incurred substantial legal and expert costs earlier in the litigation.

The court found that the applicant spouse had been unreasonable in negotiations, caused delay, and that the final settlement was closer to the respondent’s positions.

The respondent was therefore entitled to substantial costs, including portions of expert fees, transcript expenses, arbitration-related costs, and partial indemnity for legal fees.

Two actions were tried together regarding a 50-acre parcel of land.

In the first action, the plaintiff claimed $100,000 plus interest on a promissory note forming part of the consideration for the sale of a one-half interest in the property to the defendant company.

In the second action, the defendant company claimed the plaintiff and her husband made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce the purchase.

The court dismissed the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, finding no such representations were made and the purchaser had ample opportunity to review the transaction details.

The court upheld the validity of the promissory note and awarded judgment to the plaintiff for $100,000 plus prejudgment interest.