M. Abradjian

Two siblings, acting as co-Estate Trustees for their late father's estate, engaged in extensive litigation against each other, paralyzing the estate's administration.

The brother brought a motion to remove his sister as co-Estate Trustee and to appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The sister brought a cross-motion to strike the brother's counterclaim regarding the ownership of a corporate asset, arguing it was statute-barred.

The court declined to remove the sister as trustee on a paper record but appointed an ETDL due to the severe conflict of interest and hostility between the siblings.

The motion to strike the counterclaim was dismissed as there were triable issues regarding discoverability and the nature of the declaratory relief sought.

Following a successful application involving a breach of fiduciary duty and disputed signatures, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the respondents' conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the quantum at $87,100 inclusive of HST and disbursements, after making minor deductions for unissued claims and certain disbursements.

Following a successful summary judgment motion, the plaintiff and the defendant by counterclaim sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs, noting the responding parties' unreasonable delays, unproven allegations of fraud and fabricated evidence against a solicitor, and the terms of the mortgage which provided for substantial indemnity costs.

The court ordered the responding parties to pay total costs of $181,903.41.

The purchaser under a share purchase agreement brought an application seeking appointment of an arbitrator to determine a purchase price adjustment relating to working capital.

The vendors argued that the purchaser’s failure to deliver financial statements within a 40‑business‑day contractual deadline extinguished the right to arbitration and sought a stay pending a separate action alleging breach of contract and bad faith.

The court held that the agreement demonstrated a clear intention that disputes concerning price adjustment be resolved through arbitration and that the missed deadline did not terminate the contractual right to arbitrate.

The court also rejected arguments that allegations of bad faith, the involvement of escrow agents, or concerns about multiplicity of proceedings justified avoiding arbitration.

An arbitrator was appointed and the cross‑application was dismissed.

The court determined the appropriate costs award following interlocutory motions in a corporate dispute involving alleged diversion of corporate resources and denial of shareholder access to financial information under the Business Corporations Act.

The moving parties sought substantial costs including full indemnity reimbursement for accounting consultants retained to analyze financial records.

The court held that the moving parties were the more successful parties on the motions and were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

While the accounting services were reasonably incurred to assist in analyzing financial disclosure, they were treated similarly to legal services and not recoverable on a full indemnity basis.

The court reduced the claimed partial indemnity costs by 25% to reflect the moving parties’ lack of success on certain requested relief and ordered costs payable personally by two respondents rather than the corporation.

The plaintiffs, minority shareholders in a cement contracting business, brought a motion for interim relief in an oppression action, alleging the majority shareholder misappropriated corporate funds for personal use.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to compel mandatory mediation and arbitration and to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered against the majority shareholder's spouse's home.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part, appointing a monitor and requiring board approval for major decisions, while leaving day-to-day management with the majority shareholder.

The defendants' motions were dismissed, as the shareholders agreement did not mandate arbitration and the CPL was validly maintained to protect the corporation's constructive trust claim.

The defendants moved under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a default judgment and an earlier order striking their statement of defence in a property dispute involving alleged failure to disclose mould conditions in a residential basement.

The court considered the factors governing motions to set aside default judgments, including promptness of the motion, explanation for the default, and the existence of an arguable defence.

The court held that the motion had been brought without undue delay and that the defendants had an arguable defence based on sworn discovery evidence denying knowledge of mould or water problems.

Balancing prejudice to both parties and the interests of justice, the court concluded that the matter should proceed to trial on strict conditions including payment of the assessed damages and costs into court and payment of costs thrown away.

The default judgment and the order striking the defence were set aside subject to those terms.

Following a non-jury trial in which the plaintiff recovered damages and the defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed, the parties were unable to agree on costs and prejudgment interest.

The court determined that no Rule 49 offers engaged the enhanced cost consequences under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Costs were therefore awarded to the successful party on a partial indemnity basis, with the court fixing a reasonable hourly rate and approving trial preparation and attendance time as proportionate to the complexity of the dispute.

The court also addressed disbursements, rejecting the argument that mediation costs should be excluded.

Prejudgment interest was awarded at the standard rate of 4.3% pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, with no special circumstances justifying a departure.

The plaintiff, an engineering and consulting company, brought an action against the defendant for breach of an oral agreement regarding the upgrade of a test panel for an aerospace project.

The plaintiff sought payment for three outstanding invoices.

The defendant counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff abandoned the project and failed to complete the original scope of work, which the defendant argued included a real-time computer and full automation.

The court found that the real-time computer and full automation were not part of the original scope of work and that the plaintiff did not abandon the project.

The court awarded the plaintiff $78,559.09 for the outstanding invoices and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.