3 total
The court awarded $83,570 in partial indemnity costs to the successful applicant following a highly disproportionate dog ownership dispute.
This is a costs endorsement following an application decision that determined dog ownership.
The court addressed the proportionality of legal costs, noting that both parties incurred excessive fees (over $265,000 collectively) for a non-monetary issue.
Despite the applicant's success in the underlying application, the court found the requested costs disproportionate and awarded partial indemnity costs of $83,570, significantly less than the $129,345.90 partial indemnity sought by the applicant, and less than the respondent's offer to pay for the dog.
The court dismissed a motion to stay an order requiring the return of a dog to an estate pending appeal.
The appellant, Aliesha Verma, brought a motion to stay an order of Stewart J. pending appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
The underlying order declared that a dog, Rocco Jr., was owned by the deceased Leonard Carvalho and formed part of his estate, ordering Ms. Verma to return the dog to the estate trustee.
The motions judge applied the three-part test for a stay from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General): serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.
The court found that the grounds of appeal had little prospect of success, that Ms. Verma failed to establish irreparable harm related to the denial of the stay, and that the balance of convenience favoured the estate trustee due to Ms. Verma's past conduct and social media campaign.
The motion for a stay was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding party.
The court ordered the return of a dog to the deceased's estate, rejecting gift arguments.
The applicant, Arlete Carvalho, as estate trustee for the deceased Leonard Carvalho, sought a declaration that a dog, Rocco Jr., was owned by the deceased at the time of his death and should be returned to the estate.
The respondent, Aliesha Verma, argued she owned the dog, or it was gifted to her, or that promissory estoppel applied.
The court found that the deceased maintained ownership and control of the dog, and the elements of a valid gift (specifically delivery) were not met.
The promissory estoppel argument also failed due to lack of a clear promise.
The court declared the dog part of the estate and ordered its return to the applicant.