3 total
The court removed two estate trustees for delay and conflict of interest, appointing successor trustees.
The court considered an application to remove the estate trustees of Lillian Mary O’Neill’s estate, appoint successors, and require the passing of accounts.
The court found that the current trustees, Dianne and Andrea, were no longer neutral and had failed in their duties, particularly in light of delays, conflicts of interest, and lack of transparency.
The court ordered their removal, the appointment of Julie O’Neill and Karen Wolfe as successor estate trustees, and required the former trustees to pass their accounts.
Costs were awarded to the applicants.
Partial indemnity costs awarded after successful summary judgment dismissing counterclaims.
Following summary judgment dismissing counterclaims against a dentist arising from the sale of a dental practice and related employment litigation, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.
The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the counterclaims were meritless and relying on unaccepted settlement offers.
The court held that partial indemnity costs were appropriate because the unsuccessful parties were entitled to litigate their claims and the settlement offers did not justify punitive costs.
After reviewing the bills of costs and submissions, the court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs for each action.
Summary judgment granted dismissing counterclaims against vendor of dental practice for misrepresentation and indemnification.
Dr. Esty sold his dental practice to Dr. Douris.
Two former employees subsequently sued Dr. Douris and his professional corporation for wrongful dismissal.
Dr. Douris counterclaimed against the employees and joined Dr. Esty, alleging negligent misrepresentation regarding the practice's patient numbers and seeking indemnification for the wrongful dismissal claims.
Dr. Esty brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaims against him.
The court granted the motion, finding no evidence of misrepresentation, reliance, or breach of contract, and concluding that the indemnity clause in the sale agreement did not cover wrongful dismissal claims arising after the closing.
