Michael N. Bergman

Following the dismissal of an application for an accounting of an estate as an abuse of process, the successful respondents sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The applicants argued for partial indemnity costs.

The court found that the respondents, as estate trustees defending an application related to their administration of the estate, were entitled to full indemnity.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court fixed the costs payable by the applicants at $100,000.

The applicants brought an application seeking an accounting of their late mother's estate, alleging that significant funds were unaccounted for due to questionable transfers by the respondents, who acted as powers of attorney and estate trustees.

The respondents argued the application was barred by a prior consent judgment on a passing of accounts that concluded the estate litigation.

The court agreed with the respondents, finding that the applicants had commissioned a forensic accounting report prior to consenting to the judgment and that allowing the application to proceed would render the consent judgment pointless.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process and foreclosed by the prior judgment.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against a Human Rights Tribunal Vice-Chair under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action sought damages for alleged misconduct during a human rights hearing.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the respondent was immune from suit as the claim disclosed no cause of action.

The court also found no breach of fairness in dismissing the claim without submissions, given the action's inability to succeed.

The applicant franchisor commenced an application in Toronto seeking injunctive relief against the respondent franchisees for alleged breaches of a restrictive covenant in Mississauga.

The respondents brought a motion under Rule 13.1.02 to transfer the application to Brampton.

The court weighed the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) and found that the events, damages, subject matter, and convenience of parties and witnesses all favoured Brampton.

The motion to transfer venue was granted, subject to the approval of the Regional Senior Justices.