M. Dale Parayeski

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming a Community Treatment Order under the Health Care Consent Act and the Mental Health Act.

The appellant alleged unspecified factual and legal errors but primarily raised complaints regarding medication dosage, hygiene of medication delivery personnel, and dissatisfaction with a substitute decision-maker from the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The court held that these concerns did not constitute valid grounds of appeal within the court’s jurisdiction.

Finding the Board’s decision reasonable and its reasons compliant with statutory requirements, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order.

Following earlier reasons on family law motions, the court addressed the issue of costs after inviting written submissions when the parties were unable to agree.

The responding party had been largely successful on the substantive motion and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party argued costs should be deferred because the spousal support relief granted was only interim in nature.

The court rejected that argument and held that the successful party was entitled to costs immediately.

Due to insufficient differentiation in counsel’s bill of costs between settled issues and argued issues, the court fixed costs at a reduced all‑inclusive amount.

Following a successful trial in an accident benefits dispute, the parties were unable to agree on the quantum of trial costs after the Court of Appeal permitted submissions on the issue.

The plaintiff sought nearly $297,000 in legal fees plus significant disbursements, including expert accounts with high compound interest.

The court held that the interest component of the damages under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule did not justify treating the litigation as a $500,000 case for costs purposes.

The hourly rates claimed by plaintiff’s counsel were reduced and significant reductions were made to the claimed fees and certain disbursements.

The court fixed partial indemnity fees at $170,000 plus GST and disallowed interest claimed on expert disbursements.

The moving defendants sought to set aside a previously granted ex parte Mareva injunction and related orders, alleging the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure when obtaining the original order.

The court considered allegations of multiple instances of non‑disclosure and misstatements, including failure to disclose certain agreements, undisclosed referral commissions, and a one‑sided interpretation of financial statements.

While the court found that the plaintiff had not fully met the stringent duty of full and frank disclosure required for ex parte relief, it held that setting aside the injunction would create an injustice given evidence suggesting insolvency, questionable financial practices, and potential dissipation of assets.

Exercising discretion, the court declined to dissolve the injunction and maintained the existing orders.

The defendants’ motion was therefore dismissed.

The payor brought a motion to terminate or reduce spousal support ordered following the breakdown of a long-term common-law relationship.

The payor argued the recipient’s increased income and ability to subsist on reduced payments constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court held that although the recipient’s income had increased, it remained at subsistence level and did not amount to a material change sufficient to vary support.

The motion was dismissed and the original support order reinstated.

The court also ordered partial arrears after finding the payor failed to disclose his return to employment while continuing to pay reduced support through enforcement proceedings.

Following the dismissal of a motion seeking leave to appeal an earlier order to the Divisional Court, the successful defendant sought costs.

The defendant claimed $4,470.10 on a partial indemnity basis, including fees and disbursements, while the plaintiff proposed an award of $2,000.

Applying the relevant factors under the Rules governing costs, the court found that the docketed hours appeared somewhat excessive and noted that certain claimed disbursements, including a car rental, were inappropriate.

The court exercised its discretion to fix costs in a reduced lump sum amount.

On cross-motions in a family proceeding, the applicant sought interim access while the respondent sought child and spousal support.

The principal issue was whether the applicant stood in the place of a parent to a stepchild who had lived with the parties for approximately ten years.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada framework for determining whether a person stands in the place of a parent, the court found that the applicant had assumed a parental role and therefore owed support under the Divorce Act.

Interim child support for two children was ordered after accounting for the biological father’s obligation, and interim spousal support was awarded due to the respondent’s illness and substantial loss of income.

Following a family law hearing, the court addressed the parties’ competing submissions on costs.

The court considered the applicable Rules governing costs and the parties’ settlement positions.

The respondent argued that he had achieved success warranting a costs award; however, the court found that success in the proceeding was divided.

The respondent’s complicated and insufficiently explained income situation made proper evaluation of his offer to settle difficult, and the applicant’s decision not to accept it was not unreasonable.

The court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

Following a wrongful dismissal trial, the only remaining issue concerned the quantum of partial indemnity costs payable by the employer to the employee.

The employee sought over $455,000 in costs, including a large disbursement for services provided by a corporate entity associated with a lay witness who assisted counsel and testified at trial.

The court found several categories of claimed legal fees excessive, particularly for pleadings and trial preparation, and held that the defendant should not bear the cost of premium legal services retained by the plaintiff.

The court also significantly reduced the claimed disbursement for the lay witness’s advisory services, noting that much of the evidence was rejected and the invoices lacked sufficient detail.

Fees and disbursements were therefore substantially reduced.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking injunctive relief for alleged passing off, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court considered written submissions on scale and quantum.

Given that the plaintiff had expanded the issues leading to additional cross-examinations and motion materials before narrowing the argument at the last minute, the court found substantial indemnity costs were appropriate.

However, the amount claimed was found excessive due to duplication of effort and lack of detailed particulars.

Costs were fixed at $12,500 all-inclusive.

The defendant moved to enforce a settlement agreement reached via email shortly before trial.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the offer did not comply with Rule 49, there was no meeting of the minds, and she had a right to rescind under the Statutory Accident Benefits regulations.

The court found the offer was clear and unconditionally accepted, and that misapprehension by plaintiff's counsel did not void the settlement.

Following appellate authority, the court held that engaging in litigation precludes relying on SABS rescission rights to avoid a Rule 49 settlement.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted.

A mortgagee sought costs following motions in a mortgage enforcement action where it obtained summary judgment against the mortgagors.

The mortgagors had unsuccessfully alleged that the property was sold for less than fair market value and were only notionally successful on a venue motion with no practical effect after summary judgment was granted.

The mortgage required the mortgagors to indemnify the mortgagee for enforcement costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found the mortgagee’s costs outline reasonable and awarded fees and disbursements on a full indemnity scale.