Miriam Vale Peters

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for breach of a real estate agreement of purchase and sale.

The defendant failed to close the transaction because he could not obtain financing.

The property was later sold to another buyer for a lower price.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial and that the defendant breached the contract.

The plaintiffs were awarded $146,671.22 in damages for the difference in the purchase price, but their claim for carrying costs was dismissed as they were offset by rental income.

The plaintiff brought a motion for interim dependant support and exclusive possession of a home and vehicle from the estate of her deceased partner.

The defendant estate trustees, the deceased's daughters, opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff was not a 'spouse' under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court applied the Molodowich factors and found the plaintiff and the deceased had cohabited continuously for over three years and that she was financially dependent on him.

The court granted the plaintiff $2,000 per month in interim support and conditional interim possession of the home and vehicle.

The respondents, beneficiaries of the Estate of Toller James Montague Cranston, brought a motion for directions seeking the appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) and the removal of the current Estate Trustee, Phillippa Baran.

The respondents alleged mismanagement, particularly concerning the sale of artwork against their wishes for in-specie distribution, and conflicts of interest.

The Estate Trustee opposed, arguing the motion was a procedural tactic and that she was acting in the estate's best interests.

The court found the administration adversarial and the Trustee in a conflict of interest, granting the motion to appoint an ETDL to ensure transparent and orderly administration.

The applicant, Rosemary Whelan, brought a motion to transfer a passing of accounts proceeding from Toronto to Ottawa.

The Estate Trustee, Royal Trust Corporation of Canada, and other interested parties opposed the transfer.

The court found the motion premature, noting that the application to pass accounts had just commenced in Toronto, and further procedural steps, such as filing objections and a hearing for directions, were pending.

The judge emphasized that a definitive determination of venue, particularly concerning the need for live witnesses, was not yet possible.

The motion for transfer was dismissed without prejudice, with costs reserved to the judge hearing the passing of accounts.

The applicant, Daryl Earl Selkirk, sought costs following a successful application to be appointed sole estate trustee of his mother's estate, with the respondent James Loris Selkirk removed.

The court addressed the allocation of costs, departing from the traditional estate litigation approach where costs are charged to the estate, and instead applied civil litigation principles ("loser pays") subject to public policy considerations.

The court found that James acted unreasonably in part by failing to provide clear accounts, leading to a conflict of interest.

Costs were ordered to be paid partially by James personally (or from his share of the estate) to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, with the balance of the applicant's costs paid by the estate on a full indemnity basis.

A portion of James's costs, deemed reasonably necessary for estate administration, was also ordered to be paid by the estate.

The respondent provided maintenance services to ten condominium corporations under two maintenance contracts.

The appellants terminated the winter maintenance contract but delayed notifying the respondent for several months to avoid jeopardizing completion of the summer contract.

The respondent performed extra unpaid work during this period in hopes of contract renewal.

The trial judge found the appellants breached the duty of honest performance by withholding termination information and accepting the unpaid work while knowing the contract would not be renewed.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the duty of honest performance does not require disclosure of termination decisions or restrict the exercise of contractual termination rights, and that the appellants' conduct, while potentially dishonourable, did not rise to the level of breach required under the good faith performance standard established in Bhasin v. Hrynew.

The appellants sought to review an order of Roberts J.A. refusing to extend the time to file a motion to review and set aside a security for costs order made by Laforme J.A., and to obtain a stay of both that order and the underlying summary judgment.

The appellants had defaulted under two mortgages and obtained summary judgment against them.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with Roberts J.A.'s decision, which was based on the appeal being wholly without merit and the justice of the case not warranting the orders sought.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff, a snow removal contractor, sued the defendant condominium corporations and their property manager for breach of contract after they terminated a winter maintenance agreement.

Although the contract contained a 10-day termination clause, the defendants decided to terminate the contract in the spring but actively deceived the plaintiff into believing the contract would be renewed so he would continue performing summer maintenance and extra 'freebie' work.

The court applied the organizing principle of good faith and the duty of honest performance from Bhasin v. Hrynew, finding that the defendants' active deception constituted a breach of contract.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for lost profits, equipment lease costs, and an unpaid invoice.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff to amend its Statement of Claim to correct a misnomer, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs, arguing the defendants unreasonably opposed the motion.

The defendants argued they should receive costs or costs should be in the cause due to the plaintiff's delay.

The court found the plaintiff's requested costs reasonable, noting the defendants should have consented to the misnomer correction, and awarded the plaintiff $2,551.31 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to compel the defendants to remove construction brackets and work platforms that encroached on the plaintiffs' property.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding trespass.

However, the motion was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, as damages could compensate for the construction delay, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, who needed the platforms to complete their building.

The estate trustees brought a motion to appoint an independent solicitor as Special Trustee of a Henson Trust established for a beneficiary with severe autism, after the institutional trustee named in the will declined the appointment.

The beneficiary's father brought a cross-motion seeking to be appointed as Special Trustee.

The court found that the testator deliberately chose an institutional trustee over the father to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure professional expertise.

The court appointed the independent solicitor as Special Trustee and ordered no costs, finding the father acted in good faith.

The plaintiff, Christopher Callow, brought a motion to amend his Statement of Claim to correct the name of the plaintiff to his corporation, C.M. Callow Inc., four years after the cause of action arose.

The defendants opposed, arguing the limitation period had expired and it was an attempt to add a new party.

The court found that the defendants were aware the contract was with the corporation and would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

Applying the doctrine of misnomer, the court granted the motion to amend the pleadings, finding special circumstances existed to justify the correction.

The Plaintiff sought costs for a successful class action certification motion.

The Defendants argued for no costs or reduced costs due to partial success in opposing certification on some issues, and Mr. Theberge sought substantial indemnity costs for the uncertified fraud claim against him.

The court, applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Good v. Toronto Police Services Board precedent, found the Plaintiff substantially successful and awarded partial indemnity costs, rejecting the Defendants' arguments for reduction based on partial success or an award to Mr. Theberge.

A long-serving McDonald's restaurant manager was constructively dismissed when offered a demotion to first assistant with meaningfully inferior benefits or termination.

The trial judge awarded damages based on a 20-month notice period (inclusive of statutory entitlements) representing approximately 20 years of service, accounting for a service credit letter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding constructive dismissal, no failure to mitigate by refusing the demotion, and proper calculation of the notice period.

The court clarified that employment income earned during the statutory entitlement period is not deductible as mitigation, and that supplementary employment income that could have been earned concurrently with the original employment is also not deductible.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues in an estate application, including relief sought by a respondent regarding garnishment, the applicant's request for additional costs, the requirement for a proper accounting of the estate and a trust fund, and the removal and appointment of estate trustees.

The court clarifies the need for Rule 74 accountings and affidavit evidence for a proposed successor trustee, and outlines future hearing dates for unresolved matters.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the developer and its president regarding condominium units in the Alta Vista Ridge development.

The claims included breach of contract, breach of the Condominium Act, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, primarily concerning the failure to provide a forced air heating system as specified in disclosure statements and, for a subclass, the failure to provide storage units included in purchase agreements.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, defining the main class and a subclass, finding valid causes of action for most claims.

However, claims for breach of fiduciary duty and personal liability against the president, Joey Theberge, were struck for lack of pleaded material facts.

The court found the class proceeding to be the preferable procedure, promoting access to justice, judicial economy, and behaviour modification.

The testator's will directed his two children, appointed as co-executors and trustees, to set aside $100,000 in a trust fund for the benefit of their brother.

The brother was to receive $500 monthly, with the remainder to the testator's grandchildren.

The co-trustees transferred the funds to a non-registered investment plan in one trustee's name, who subsequently misappropriated the funds.

The application judge found both trustees jointly and severally liable for the breach of trust.

The appellant co-trustee appealed, arguing she had no active role in the misappropriation and should be relieved of liability under s. 35(1) of the Trustee Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a co-trustee cannot passively acquiesce to another trustee's actions and that her failure to ensure the trust was properly established constituted an unreasonable breach of fiduciary duty.

The applicant, Patrick Cahill, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful application regarding a trust fund.

The respondents, Kevin Cahill and Sheila Kehoe, opposed the scale of costs.

The court found that the applicant's offers to settle did not meet the requirements of Rule 49 for substantial indemnity costs, nor did Sheila Kehoe's conduct warrant such an award.

Kevin Cahill's disregard for the process was noted, but his personal circumstances mitigated against a substantial indemnity award against him.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs for the main application, for which Kevin Cahill and Sheila Kehoe were jointly and severally liable.

Kevin Cahill was solely liable for partial indemnity costs related to a motion for substitutional service.

This costs endorsement followed a motion where the applicants sought orders regarding the exhumation of ashes, appointment as estate trustee, and reimbursement of funeral expenses, while also seeking inspection of a hockey card collection.

The respondent successfully opposed the exhumation and estate trustee appointment but was ordered to repay funeral expenses and allow inspection/division of hockey cards.

The court considered Rule 57 factors, including divided success and an offer to settle made by the respondent that exceeded the outcome.

The applicants were ordered to pay costs to the respondent, which were to be offset against the funeral expense reimbursement.

Mark Catto died intestate.

His mother, Nan Catto, and brother, Chuck Catto, brought an application seeking orders to exhume Mark's ashes for reburial, appoint Nan as Estate Trustee, compel the Estate to repay funeral expenses paid by Nan, and allow Chuck to inspect a hockey card collection.

The court determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application.

It appointed Mark's wife, Donna McKay, as Estate Trustee, granting her the right to decide on the burial of the ashes, thus denying the exhumation request.

The court ordered the Estate to repay Nan for funeral expenses, finding she did not intend them as a gift.

Chuck Catto was granted the right to inspect the hockey card collection.