Nathaniel Read-Ellis

The court addressed a costs dispute concerning a claimed accounting disbursement incurred during motion proceedings involving a family trust dispute.

The responding parties argued that the accounting work performed by an accounting firm was duplicative of the work performed by an expert witness retained by the moving party.

The court found that the accounting firm and the expert witness served distinct roles and that the accounting work was reasonably necessary in light of accounting evidence advanced by the opposing parties.

The court also noted that the responding parties themselves had retained multiple accounting professionals.

The challenged disbursement was therefore allowed.

Following a successful interim motion, the plaintiff sought substantial partial indemnity costs including legal fees and significant disbursements.

The defendants challenged the seniority of plaintiff’s counsel, the necessity of multiple cross-examinations, and certain expert-related disbursements.

The court rejected arguments that senior counsel or the scope of cross-examination rendered the costs unreasonable and held that the successful party was entitled to recover reasonable litigation expenses incurred to respond to the defendants’ positions.

Expert accounting fees incurred to respond to the opposing expert were allowed.

The court fixed legal fees at $75,000 plus HST and allowed most disbursements, reserving determination of one accounting disbursement pending further submissions.

The plaintiff brought a motion for interim relief under the oppression provisions of the OBCA against his parents and various family corporations.

He sought an interim distribution of proceeds from a US litigation and the continuation of monthly payments he had historically received.

The court declined to order the interim distribution due to the contingent nature of the funds, but ordered the funds protected and settlement information disclosed.

The court also declined to order the continuation of historical monthly payments, finding them to be personal gifts.

However, the court found a strong prima facie case of oppression regarding unequal cash advances made to other shareholders from a family holding company, and ordered interim equalization payments and a halt to non-dividend cash advances.

The plaintiff sought over $52 million in damages alleging that casino operators and a Crown gaming agency fixed casino games using computer technology, failed to disclose risks to players, and over-served alcohol.

The casino operators moved for summary judgment while the gaming regulator moved to strike the claim.

The court found the plaintiff produced no evidence supporting allegations that electronic games were predetermined or non-random and accepted uncontroverted evidence explaining the operation of random number generators and regulatory oversight.

Claims relating to failure to disclose and over-service of alcohol also lacked evidentiary support.

The regulator’s motion to strike was granted because statutory gaming regulators owe duties to the public at large rather than private duties of care to individual gamblers, and the pleadings disclosed no recognized cause of action.