Miriam Vale Peters

This motion sought to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered against property owned by Anita Ricci, which Stephen Jaworski, as co-executor, claimed was part of their father's estate.

Anita Ricci argued material non-disclosure by Stephen Jaworski when obtaining the ex parte CPL.

The court found no material non-disclosure and upheld the CPL, concluding that the estate had a triable interest in the property due to the presumption of resulting trust for gratuitous transfers to adult children.

The appellant solicitors appealed an assessment ordering them to repay $73,000 and costs to their former client.

They argued the trial judge erred by relying on an inadmissible expert report, failing to dismiss for delay, and violating mediation confidentiality.

The respondent cross-appealed, seeking further reduction of the accounts and a higher interest rate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's evaluation of the solicitors' competence, his procedural rulings, or his discretionary award of interest.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old store manager with 20 years of service, was placed on a performance improvement plan with arbitrary and unfair goals.

After meeting the goals, she was offered a demotion, which she refused, claiming constructive dismissal.

The court found the employer did not have just cause for dismissal, as the plaintiff was not incompetent and the performance goals were impossible to meet.

The court held the plaintiff was constructively dismissed and awarded 20 months' pay in lieu of notice, totaling $104,499.33, finding her refusal to accept the demotion and her subsequent mitigation efforts were reasonable.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment for possession and sale of properties after the defendant mortgagors defaulted on first and second mortgages.

The defendants brought a cross-motion seeking to dismiss the summary judgment and set aside the mortgages, alleging the plaintiff made an oral promise to lift the second mortgage and that the terms were unconscionable.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, rejecting the defendants' claims of an oral promise and unconscionability, as the defendants had legal representation and were not vulnerable borrowers.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the amount owing, possession, and sale of the properties.

The testator's will appointed his daughter and son as executors and directed them to set aside $100,000 in a trust fund for the benefit of another son.

The executors transferred the funds to an investment account with the son as the annuitant and no named beneficiary.

The son subsequently misappropriated the funds for his own business.

The applicant sought payment of his entitlement and the removal of the executors.

The court found that the trust fund was never properly established and that both executors breached their fiduciary duties.

The daughter's passive reliance on her co-executor fell short of the standard of care required of an executor.

The executors were held jointly and severally liable for the dissipated funds.

The applicant sought to be appointed sole guardian of property and personal care for his mother following the death of his co-guardian brother, and sought approval of an amended management plan.

The Public Guardian and Trustee opposed the plan, arguing the applicant was in a conflict of interest because he proposed that a trust for which he is trustee purchase the mother's interest in a farm property.

The court declined to dismiss the application or appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee, finding no evidence the applicant had acted against the mother's best interests.

The court granted the applicant leave to provide further details and file a further amended management plan to address the deficiencies.

Costs decision following a motion for directions in a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The applicant sought inclusion of production terms requiring disclosure of medical records and a lawyer’s file relating to powers of attorney executed by the applicant’s mother.

The court had previously refused to include those production terms in the order for directions.

On the issue of costs, the court held that the motion proceeded unnecessarily due to the applicant’s insistence on the disputed production terms and that the respondents had been prepared to consent to the remaining terms.

Partial indemnity costs were therefore awarded to two respondents, with reductions applied to the amounts claimed as excessive.

Following a solicitor‑client account assessment, the court determined costs arising from the proceeding.

The client obtained significant reductions to the law firm’s accounts, approaching approximately 50% of the amounts billed, including the elimination or waiver of certain accounts and other reductions.

The court considered the parties’ Rule 49 settlement offers and litigation conduct in assessing substantial success under the framework of Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the client was substantially successful, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Partial indemnity fees and certain disbursements were allowed, with reductions where claimed disbursements were inappropriate or related to excluded expert evidence.

The applicant, acting personally and as executor of his mother's estate, sought an assessment of his former law firm's accounts totaling over $190,000.

The core dispute was whether the law firm provided competent advice when it recommended commencing a lawsuit and an interlocutory motion against the applicant's brothers to have jointly held assets paid into the estate, primarily to leverage higher executor's compensation.

The court found that the motion was ill-advised, unlikely to succeed, and of no value to the client, as the underlying issues could have been resolved through a passing of accounts.

The court ordered the law firm to repay $73,000 in fees and disbursements related to the motion, while approving the balance of the accounts.

The applicant sought an Order for Directions in an application challenging powers of attorney executed by his mother and seeking to replace the appointed attorneys for property and personal care.

The parties agreed to most procedural directions, including a capacity assessment, but disputed proposed terms requiring automatic production of extensive medical records and a lawyer’s file if incapacity were later found.

The court held the proposed production terms were premature, overly broad, and procedurally improper because non‑parties affected by the order had not been served.

The court emphasized the distinctions in the Substitute Decisions Act between capacity to grant powers of attorney and incapacity to manage property or personal care.

The contested production terms were refused and directions were issued for capacity assessments and procedural steps in the application.

The parties were former joint investors in two real estate properties.

The defendant paid the plaintiff $195,000, which the defendant claimed was a full settlement for both properties, while the plaintiff claimed it was only for one.

Three years into the litigation, the defendant brought a motion to amend his statement of defence, withdraw admissions, and add a counterclaim alleging he overpaid the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the admissions were advertent and that allowing the amendments would fundamentally alter the factual narrative, causing prejudice to the plaintiff that could not be remedied by costs.

This was a costs endorsement following the plaintiff's success on a motion resisting a stay for lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The court held that the plaintiff had made a Rule 49 offer that was essentially matched by the result obtained and was therefore entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The defendants did not challenge counsel's hourly rate or the application of Rule 49, but argued fewer hours had been spent.

The court found the hours claimed reasonable under the Rule 57 factors and awarded $16,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

This was a costs endorsement following an earlier decision on the costs of a summary judgment motion that was never argued on the merits because the action settled.

The plaintiff sought additional costs for arguing about costs, relying on a prior offer to settle for $45,600.00.

The court held that the earlier costs award already included the time spent preparing for the summary judgment motion and that the disclosed offer did not justify any additional award.

No further costs were ordered.

Following the dismissal of a motion seeking to add two former solicitors as defendants in a professional negligence action, the non-party solicitors sought costs.

The court confirmed that the solicitors had successfully resisted the motion and were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

In assessing costs under Rule 57, the court considered the importance of the issues, the significant damages claimed, extensive cross‑examinations, documentary record, and preparation required due to late abandonment of certain claims.

A moderate downward adjustment was applied to the hours claimed.

The court fixed reasonable costs payable by the plaintiffs to each solicitor.

Vendors brought a motion for summary judgment after purchasers repudiated an agreement of purchase and sale for residential property.

The court addressed disputed heads of damages including bridge financing, cleaning and painting costs, and calculation of loss of bargain.

Bridge financing incurred to complete the purchase of a replacement residence was reasonably foreseeable and recoverable, while cleaning and painting expenses were not recoverable because they would have been incurred regardless of the breach.

Loss of bargain damages were calculated based on the difference between the net proceeds of the original aborted sale and the eventual resale.

Costs were not awarded as success was divided.

The plaintiff moved to amend a statement of claim in a professional negligence action to add two former solicitors as defendants for allegedly failing to commence a commercial fire loss action within the applicable limitation period.

The proposed defendants opposed the amendment, arguing there was no evidence of retainer in one case and that the claims were statute‑barred.

The court held that the evidence demonstrated one solicitor had not been retained to pursue the fire loss claim and therefore there was no basis to add him as a defendant.

With respect to the second solicitor, the court concluded that the plaintiff was aware of the missed limitation issue when his subsequent counsel assumed carriage of the file, triggering the two‑year limitation period for a negligence claim.

As the motion to add that solicitor was brought after the limitation period expired, the amendment was refused.

The third-party insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' motor vehicle accident claim against the defendant, arguing it was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The central issue was when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered that his injuries met the threshold under section 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the plaintiff's medical prognosis and the untested affidavit evidence precluded a 'full appreciation' of the facts without a trial.

The appeal hearing was adjourned after partial argument because two members of the panel raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest involving a party to the proceedings, Philip Epstein, or his counsel.

The parties were directed to obtain another early date from the Court of Appeal Office, with costs of the day reserved to the panel hearing the motion.