M. Green

Following a motion to vary an order concerning their mother's care and estate, the parties made submissions on costs.

The court found that the moving parties (two of the siblings) engaged in unreasonable litigation conduct that unnecessarily lengthened and delayed the proceedings.

Costs were awarded to the Public Guardian and Trustee, Section 3 counsel, BMO Trust Company, and the responding siblings.

To sanction the moving parties' conduct while recognizing the estate's ability to pay, the court ordered the costs to be paid from the mother's estate, with 50% of those costs to be set off against the moving parties' future inheritance.

The moving parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

Section 3 counsel brought a motion to vary a previous order regarding the guardianship of an incapable person, after the appointed guardian of personal care (the incapable person's daughter) indicated she would seek outside employment and hire professional caregivers instead of providing full-time personal care herself without compensation, contrary to the guardianship plan she had filed.

The court found that the daughter's actions escalated the litigation and that she put her own interests ahead of her mother's.

However, because the mother was thriving under the daughter's full-time care, and the daughter threatened to cease providing care if not appointed guardian and compensated, the court varied its previous order to allow for the daughter's compensation.

To mitigate conflict of interest and ensure the mother's best interests, the court appointed the daughter and one of her brothers as joint guardians of personal care.

Section 3 counsel brought a motion to vary a previous order regarding the guardianship of an elderly mother, after the daughter appointed as guardian of personal care indicated she would seek outside employment and hire full-time professional caregivers unless compensated.

The court found that the daughter's actions escalated the litigation and were money-driven, but recognized that the mother was thriving under her daughter's full-time personal care.

To ensure the mother's best interests were met, the court varied the order to appoint the daughter and one of her brothers as joint guardians of personal care, and ordered that the daughter be compensated for her caregiving services.

Costs decision following an application concerning ownership and control of a lakeside promenade shown on a subdivision plan.

The municipality was largely successful in establishing ownership of the land held for the benefit of the public and immunity from claims of adverse possession, though it failed on its argument that the land constituted a public highway and the respondents secured a future trial on laches regarding existing shoreline structures.

The respondents argued that the proceeding constituted public interest litigation and that success was divided.

The court found the municipality to be the more successful party but recognized the respondents’ contribution to resolving a longstanding public dispute and to advancing legal issues affecting public access.

Applying reductions for the public interest component and the respondents’ cooperative conduct, the court substantially reduced the municipality’s recoverable costs.

The Township of Oro-Medonte brought an application for a declaration that a strip of waterfront land known as Lake Shore Promenade, shown on a 1914 plan of subdivision, was a public highway owned by the municipality.

The respondent abutting lot owners argued that the land was not a public highway and claimed possessory title through adverse possession, having maintained the land and built shore-related structures on it for decades.

The court held that while the original owner intended to dedicate the land as a public highway, the Township's acceptance of it as such was void because the land did not meet the statutory width requirements for a highway in 1914.

Instead, the land was held by the Township in trust for the public as an access way and lakeside park.

The court further held that municipally owned land held for public benefit is immune from adverse possession claims, and in any event, the respondents failed to establish exclusive and adverse possession.

However, the court found a prima facie case that the doctrine of laches could apply to prevent the Township from removing existing shore-related structures due to its long-standing acquiescence, and directed a trial on that issue.

The decision concerns costs following an earlier ruling regarding a disputed development condition tied to a municipal option to purchase land originally reserved for school board use.

After the court determined the condition was unsupported and imposed a reasonable time for the municipality to exercise or waive its option, the successful applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $16,612.83.

The respondent argued the claimed partial indemnity rate was excessive and proposed a lower percentage.

Applying the Rule 57 criteria and principles of proportionality, the court noted that costs were being fixed rather than assessed and that the issues, while not complex, were unique and carefully addressed by senior counsel.

The court found no excess in the work performed but adjusted the amount, fixing costs payable to the applicant at $14,500 all inclusive.