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.

The parties were married in 1987 and separated in 2015.

During the marriage, while living in Quebec, they signed two notarial instruments (in 1988 and 1990) adopting a 'separate as to property' regime and opting out of the Quebec family patrimony regime.

The applicant wife sought an equalization of net family property under the Ontario Family Law Act, arguing the Quebec instruments did not oust the Ontario equalization regime or, alternatively, should be set aside under s. 56(4) of the Act.

The court held that the Quebec instruments did not contain clear and cogent language addressing the relative economic positions of the parties upon marriage breakdown, and therefore did not oust the equalization provisions of the Act.

Alternatively, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the instruments under s. 56(4) because the respondent husband failed to disclose significant assets (his multi-million dollar inheritances) and the wife did not understand the nature and consequences of the contracts when she signed them.

The wife was permitted to proceed with her equalization claim.

The moving party brought a motion to strike the responding party's pleadings and for costs due to her failure to comply with a prior disclosure order.

The court found that the responding party had disobeyed the order and that her non-compliance was willful, despite her claims that her former lawyer was responsible.

However, the court concluded that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort and the non-compliance was not egregious enough to warrant such a drastic measure.

The court dismissed the request to strike pleadings but ordered the responding party to pay $5,000 in costs and to produce the remaining outstanding disclosure forthwith.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from criminal convictions for impaired operation causing death, dangerous operation causing death, and breach of recognizance.

The panel held that the criminal conduct, although outside a clinical setting, was relevant to the provision of dental care to the public because it demonstrated a serious disregard for public safety and undermined fundamental public expectations of regulated health professionals.

The panel accepted a joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, a six-month suspension, practice monitoring and treatment-related conditions, and costs.

A publication ban was made permanent over certain personal information in the member’s affidavit.

The appellant appealed a family arbitration award regarding the calculation of spousal support under a separation agreement.

The core issue was the interpretation of 'previously equalized property' and whether the gross or net value (after contingent tax liabilities) of the respondent's pension should be excluded from his income to avoid 'double dipping'.

The Arbitrator accepted the joint actuary's methodology of deducting the gross equalized portion from the gross pension received.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the Arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement or her reliance on the actuarial evidence.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's claim of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The plaintiff, a dentist, alleged he was misled during negotiations to exercise an option to purchase an interest in a dental practice.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to properly plead the necessary elements of negligent misrepresentation, including duty of care, detrimental reliance, and damages.

The court granted the motion to strike the negligent misrepresentation claim but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim to cure the deficiencies.

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 applicant wife brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, interim disbursements, a restraining order, and the appointment of a receiver/manager for the respondent husband's companies.

The husband sought to terminate an existing non-dissipation order and requested access to their 15-year-old son.

Due to the husband's failure to provide financial disclosure, the court imputed his income at $600,000 per year and ordered interim child and spousal support accordingly.

The court continued the non-dissipation order to protect the wife's equalization claim but declined to appoint a receiver/manager or grant a restraining order.

The wife's request for interim disbursements was denied as she was not impecunious.

Following a serious motor vehicle accident involving a leased tractor trailer, the insured plaintiffs sought a determination that their insurer's umbrella policy did not respond and summary judgment against their insurance broker and broker employee for failing to secure excess coverage.

The court held that the leased vehicle was excluded from the non-owned automobile coverage by the long-term lease exclusion and that the umbrella coverage did not apply because the lessor's primary policy was not listed in the schedule of underlying insurance.

The court excluded the broker's expert report as unnecessary for policy interpretation, applied the summary judgment framework, and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The broker defendants were found to have breached their duty of care by failing to identify and address the coverage gap, and contributory negligence was rejected.

Summary judgment was granted against the broker defendants.

Following a motion regarding child and spousal support, the applicant mother sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the mother was substantially successful on the motion, particularly regarding spousal support, section 7 expenses, and insurance designations.

The court applied the maximum hourly rates set out in OGT Holdings and reduced the claimed fees and disbursements to reflect a fair and reasonable amount that the unsuccessful party would expect to pay.

The respondent father was ordered to pay costs of $14,250 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

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 appellant appealed a decision regarding the calculation of a mortgage payout rate and the validity of a prepayment clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the prepayment clause was not void for uncertainty and that the calculation of the payout rate at 4.35 percent was substantiated by the lender's evidence given the risk-free nature of the loan.

In a family law proceeding concerning spousal support and arrears, the responding party disputed portions of a draft order prepared following earlier reasons for decision.

The court directed that the responding party bring a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to address the disputed provisions.

Procedural timelines were set for service of motion materials, responses, replies, cross-examinations, and undertakings.

Pending determination of the motion, the court ordered interim payment of spousal support arrears totaling $24,000 plus an additional $5,000 payment, with compliance to be considered in the determination of costs.