Michael W. Czuma

The plaintiff, Marie Bagoo, sued the City of Toronto for negligence after a slip and fall on an unrepaired sidewalk on Centre Island.

The City failed to defend the action and was noted in default.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment under Rule 19.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the City liable for failing to maintain the sidewalk and prevent the trip hazard, which caused the plaintiff's injuries.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for special and general damages, along with costs.

The applicants sought to remove the respondent as estate trustee of their father's estate.

The respondent had failed to make any distributions for over six years, failed to provide a court-ordered accounting, and could not explain $60,000 in missing estate funds.

The court found the respondent lacked the capacity to execute her fiduciary duties due to her personal circumstances and conflict of interest.

The court ordered the respondent's removal, appointed the applicant as the new estate trustee, and awarded substantial indemnity costs against the respondent.

Following a trial concerning the validity of a will and an alleged breach of trust, the court had previously upheld the validity of the will but found one defendant liable for $140,000 in damages for breach of trust.

The successful plaintiffs sought costs on a full indemnity basis, arguing their overall success and the conduct of the defendant justified such an award.

The defendant conceded liability for costs but argued they should be assessed on a partial indemnity basis, relying in part on an earlier settlement offer and the plaintiffs’ lack of success on the will challenge.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that costs should follow the event but declined to award full indemnity.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $50,000 in fees plus taxes and $5,829.88 in disbursements, payable personally by the defendant rather than the estate.

The plaintiffs challenged the validity of their grandmother's 2004 will and the transfer of her home into joint tenancy with her daughter, the defendant.

The court found that the deceased had testamentary capacity and intended to gift the house to the defendant, rebutting the presumption of a resulting trust.

However, the gift was conditional on the defendant paying $70,000 to each of the plaintiffs.

The court held that the defendant breached her trust obligations by failing to pay the legacies and instead spending the funds for her own benefit.

The defendant was ordered to pay $140,000 to the plaintiffs.