Michael S. Rankin

The applicant sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity scale following a consent order resolving her motion for a Mareva injunction and Norwich order against the respondent, her brother and co-estate trustee.

The respondent had unilaterally transferred approximately $500,000 of estate assets to himself.

The court declined to award elevated costs, noting the applicant had also participated in impersonating the deceased to facilitate the initial transfer of funds.

The court fixed the applicant's costs on a partial indemnity scale at $45,960.00 and found the respondent's settlement offer did not entitle him to a costs set-off as it lacked the certainty achieved in the consent order.

The husband appealed a lower court decision that set aside two Quebec marriage contracts, which had stipulated separation as to property, thereby allowing the wife to pursue an equalization claim under Ontario's Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband's appeal, upholding the application judge's discretionary decision to set aside the contracts.

The basis for setting aside included the husband's failure to disclose significant assets (a $4 million inheritance) and the wife's lack of understanding of the contracts' nature and consequences, particularly regarding her entitlement to share in the income from inherited property, which is not automatically excluded from net family property under Ontario or Quebec law unless expressly stated by the testator/donor.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion by The Canada Soccer Association Incorporated (Canada Soccer) for an interim stay of an arbitral award and a cross-motion by Association de Soccer de Brossard (ASB) to enforce the award.

The court had previously dismissed Canada Soccer's motion and granted ASB's cross-motion.

In this endorsement, ASB sought substantial indemnity costs, while Canada Soccer argued for its own costs due to alleged bad faith by ASB or deferral of costs to the application judge.

The court found no evidence of bad faith by ASB and declined to defer costs.

It awarded ASB partial indemnity costs up to the date of its Rule 49.10 offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, totaling $65,367.25, to be paid within 30 days.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day focused hearing where the applicant was entirely successful in setting aside Quebec matrimonial instruments.

The applicant sought costs of over $400,000, while the respondent proposed approximately $184,000.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, awarded the applicant $200,000 in fees and $65,106.73 in disbursements.

The court noted that neither party's offer to settle contained a true element of compromise, as the underlying issue was binary, and found some of the applicant's claimed hours for general research and costs submissions to be excessive and disproportionate, despite the high stakes and complexity of proving foreign law.

Two consolidated appeals arising from a family law proceeding between parents concerning custody and access to their child.

The respondent appealed an order dismissing a recusal application against a judge, and the appellant appealed an order denying leave to amend pleadings to seek custody.

The court found the case had become a procedural morass characterized by lack of good faith efforts to resolve issues.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The court emphasized that the appellant had pursued indirect procedural tactics rather than direct routes of review, and that the custody issue had been finally determined by a subsequent order that was not appealed.

Two appeals from a trial judgment concerning liability for environmental remediation of real property contaminated by dry cleaning solvents.

The trial judge found Fraser Hillary's Limited liable in nuisance and under section 99 of the Environmental Protection Act, awarding over $1.8 million in damages for remediation.

The action against David Hillary was dismissed.

Fraser appealed on grounds that the trial judge erred in finding it liable in nuisance and under the EPA.

The plaintiff appealed on grounds that the trial judge erred in failing to find negligence, failing to find the individual defendant liable in nuisance or negligence, and in assessing damages.

The appellate court dismissed both appeals, upholding the trial judgment.

A motion by Ecojustice for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning environmental contamination liability.

The underlying judgment held the defendant corporation liable in nuisance and under the Environmental Protection Act for approximately $1.8 million in damages.

Ecojustice sought to provide submissions on environmental law implications and the retrospective application of statutory provisions.

The motion judge dismissed the intervention motion, finding that Ecojustice's proposed submissions would not materially assist the court and would cause injustice to the respondents by requiring them to address new arguments without adequate notice.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, interim disbursements for expert fees, and financial disclosure.

The parties were married for 40 years but maintained separate finances, with the respondent acquiring significant wealth through inheritance late in the marriage.

The court dismissed the claims for interim spousal support, finding no prima facie case for entitlement given the lack of financial dependency.

The court also dismissed the request for the immediate sale of the home and interim disbursements, but granted a limited order for financial disclosure.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following motions brought by both parties in a family law matter.

The Court found the applicant, Mrs. Syed, to be the successful party on major issues, including the imputation of the respondent Mr. Syed's income at $600,000 per annum and the determination of child and spousal support.

While there was divided success on some minor issues, and Mr. Syed made some concessions, his unreasonable behaviour regarding financial disclosure significantly impacted the costs incurred by Mrs. Syed.

The Court declined to award full-recovery costs, finding Mr. Syed's conduct did not meet the high threshold for bad faith, but awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant insurance broker brought a motion seeking production of documents relating to a prior broker and leave to amend its statement of defence in an action alleging negligent placement of umbrella insurance coverage.

The underlying dispute concerned denial of excess insurance coverage following a serious motor vehicle accident involving a leased transport truck, exposing the plaintiff to potential liability beyond primary insurance limits.

The court permitted production of certain documents in the plaintiff’s possession but declined to require the plaintiff to obtain the full file from the prior broker at this stage.

On the pleading motion, the court refused amendments that would effectively withdraw admissions or introduce prejudicial and contradictory pleadings, but allowed amendments asserting contributory negligence based on the plaintiff’s alleged failure to review policy documents.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff due to partial success on the motion.

The applicant sought costs following a contested family law motion, requesting full recovery costs of $33,539 or alternatively partial recovery costs of $22,136.

The respondent argued that a clause in a Partial Interim Separation Agreement barred any costs award or, alternatively, that costs should be limited to a substantially lower amount.

The court held that the contractual clause requiring each party to pay their own legal and professional fees did not waive the applicant’s right to seek a judicial award of costs.

Finding the applicant to be the successful party and noting that an offer to settle engaged full recovery entitlement for part of the proceeding, the court reduced the claimed amounts due to excessive hourly rates, duplication of work, and unnecessary attendance by multiple counsel.

Costs were fixed on an all‑inclusive basis.

The applicant mother brought a motion to compel the respondent father and a non-party corporation to produce extensive financial documents and answer undertakings to determine the father's income for spousal support purposes.

The father brought a cross-motion to compel the mother to answer undertakings.

The court ordered extensive third-party corporate disclosure, finding that the father's complex corporate and trust structures necessitated broader production to fairly determine his income.

Both parties were also ordered to answer specific undertakings and refusals.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by the plaintiff, the court determined the issue of costs.

Applying the general principle that costs follow the event, the court held that the defendants were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the defendants’ request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the motion was not unreasonable and there was no evidence of bad faith.

Considering the complexity and importance of the issues raised, the court fixed partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff to each defendant.