M. Desa

This is a costs endorsement following an application decision that determined dog ownership.

The court addressed the proportionality of legal costs, noting that both parties incurred excessive fees (over $265,000 collectively) for a non-monetary issue.

Despite the applicant's success in the underlying application, the court found the requested costs disproportionate and awarded partial indemnity costs of $83,570, significantly less than the $129,345.90 partial indemnity sought by the applicant, and less than the respondent's offer to pay for the dog.

The applicant, Arlete Carvalho, as estate trustee for the deceased Leonard Carvalho, sought a declaration that a dog, Rocco Jr., was owned by the deceased at the time of his death and should be returned to the estate.

The respondent, Aliesha Verma, argued she owned the dog, or it was gifted to her, or that promissory estoppel applied.

The court found that the deceased maintained ownership and control of the dog, and the elements of a valid gift (specifically delivery) were not met.

The promissory estoppel argument also failed due to lack of a clear promise.

The court declared the dog part of the estate and ordered its return to the applicant.