Nathan M. Ross

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following an underlying motion.

The court considered a pre-litigation settlement offer made by the responding party, Lise Partanen, to the moving party, Edward Sorozan Jr., which was more favourable than the outcome achieved by Mr. Sorozan Jr. Despite not being a formal Rule 49 offer, the court gave it significant weight.

The court ordered Mr. Sorozan Jr. to pay Ms. Partanen $2,500 in costs, balancing the principle of indemnity, reasonable expectations, and the unique circumstances, including the early settlement offer.

The court addressed competing claims to life insurance proceeds between the deceased's spouse and son, following the insurer's payment of disputed funds into court.

The son moved for payment to him, while the spouse cross-moved for payment to her.

The court inferred the existence of a lost beneficiary designation form naming the spouse as the sole beneficiary, based on circumstantial evidence including a superseded prior designation, a subsequent "Retiree Group Life Insurance Record" confirming the spouse as sole beneficiary, and the deceased's consistent testamentary intentions.

The court dismissed the son's motion and granted the spouse's cross-motion, ordering the funds paid to her.

The moving party (Ontario) sought an order that no costs be awarded for a motion to strike, while the responding parties (plaintiffs) sought $4,500 in costs.

The court noted that success on the motion was divided, as the plaintiffs' most recent claim was not struck, but Ontario had taken many steps to move the matter along in response to the plaintiffs' repeated amendments to their pleadings.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) and the principle that costs are normally not awarded where success is divided, the court ordered no costs.

The moving party, the Ontario Provincial Police, brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike out paragraphs of the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs' claims arose from an allegedly unlawful eviction overseen by the police, resulting in claims for misfeasance in public office and intimidation.

The court applied the test for striking pleadings, reading the facts generously, and concluded that the amended statement of claim disclosed reasonable causes of action.

The motion was dismissed.

The Attorney General commenced a civil forfeiture application under ss. 3 and 8 of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 seeking forfeiture of $104,877 USD seized from an individual at Toronto Pearson International Airport.

The respondent opposed the application and brought a motion under s. 5(1) of the Act requesting payment of legal and expert expenses from the seized funds.

The court held that the respondent’s second motion for legal expenses was not barred by res judicata and that the expert accounting report constituted a reasonable legal expense, but the payment was capped by the statutory 15% limit under O. Reg. 91/02.

On the merits of the forfeiture application, the court found on a balance of probabilities that the funds were either proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity, relying on circumstantial evidence including the packaging, concealment, inconsistent explanations, and lack of credible lawful source.

The respondent failed to establish status as a legitimate or responsible owner and the interests of justice exception did not apply.