Manpreet Kaur

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application for dependant support, the successful respondent sought costs against the applicant and a portion against the applicant's counsel personally.

The court applied the two-part test under Rule 57.07(1) and declined to order costs against counsel personally, finding it was not a clear case despite concerning conduct.

The court also declined to award substantial indemnity costs, but awarded the respondent $100,000 in partial indemnity costs against the applicant.

Counsel for the respondent in an estate dispute moved for a charging order and mortgage over the disputed property to secure unpaid and future legal fees.

The motion was brought mid-way through the proceeding, relying on s. 34 of the Solicitors Act and the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature because the property had not yet been 'recovered or preserved' through the solicitor's instrumentality, and there was insufficient evidence that the client was unable or unwilling to pay.

The court also declined to amend an existing preservation order to allow the registration of a mortgage, noting potential prejudice to the applicant's set-off claims.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the applicant, deferred until the final outcome of the application.

The Applicant sought dependant support from the Estates of his grandparents and uncle under the Succession Law Reform Act, and an order impressing assets with a trust.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Applicant was not a dependant of any of the deceaseds as he was not receiving regular support immediately before their deaths.

The court also found no evidence that his uncle had demonstrated a settled intention to treat him as a child of his family, nor was there a basis for a resulting trust, constructive trust, or proprietary estoppel claim.