Noémie Christine Julia Ducret

This costs endorsement follows a trial between family members over a life interest in a home.

The court found that Herminia Bada retained a life interest in the property, despite having signed an Acknowledgment and Direction removing it from title, as she did not understand the implications.

The court considered the conduct of the parties, including Herminia’s dishonesty about signing the document, and fixed costs at $45,000 in fees plus HST and $7,000 in disbursements, rather than the higher amount sought.

The court emphasized the importance of truthfulness and the principles governing costs awards.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the Town of Perth and the County of Lanark for their failure to make decisions on a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

The applications propose a 94-unit residential development.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing for November 2024 and directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The mother and daughter entered into an agreement where the mother transferred her property to the daughter but retained a life interest.

The daughter later required financing to renovate the property, and the bank required the life interest to be discharged.

The mother signed an acknowledgment and direction discharging her life interest.

Years later, the relationship broke down, and the daughter attempted to evict the mother and sell the property.

The court found that the discharge of the life interest was invalid due to undue influence, as the mother did not fully understand the consequences and did not receive independent legal advice.

The mother's life interest was declared valid, and the daughter was ordered to provide an accounting for funds managed while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the Town of Perth and the County of Lanark for their failure to make decisions on a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two interested parties on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions and narrow the issues, and the parties were directed to file a draft Procedural Order.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of an adjudicator's determination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs against the appellant following the dismissal of the appellant's appeals regarding official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The applicant argued that the appellant persistently violated the Procedural Order and that the appeals were frivolous, in bad faith, and brought for a collateral purpose.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not breach the Procedural Order, having provided adequate notice for withdrawing issues and a witness.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct, concluding that the appellant raised valid planning issues.

The motion for costs was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction and that the motion constituted an abuse of process due to a prior Quebec court order concerning share ownership.

The defendants also sought to add Shawn Gascon as a party.

The court dismissed the defendants' request to dismiss the summary judgment motion, finding that the issues of jurisdiction and abuse of process should be properly addressed within the context of the summary judgment motion itself, and that the cited rules (21.01(3)(a) and (d)) did not grant authority to dismiss a motion, only an action.

However, the court granted the defendants' request to add Shawn Gascon as a defendant, deeming him a necessary party to the action.

The appellant community association appealed the City of Ottawa's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment to permit a six-storey residential care facility.

The appellant argued that the Future Land Use Study was incomplete from a transportation perspective and that the development was premature due to existing transportation deficiencies.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development would have a minimal impact on traffic, that the developer is not responsible for fixing existing municipal transportation deficiencies, and that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Official Plan.

This costs endorsement followed a summary judgment motion where portable school classrooms were found to be "improvements" under the Construction Act.

OnPoint Group Ltd., the successful party on the main issue, sought full indemnity costs, while intervening parties also sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded OnPoint Group Ltd. $35,000 and the intervenors $9,500, both on a partial indemnity basis.

The decision considered factors such as mixed success, complexity, and the novelty of the issue, and addressed the impact of bilingual proceedings on costs.

The Estate of Jackie Cray brought a motion to dismiss an application by Sofie Vaux-Lacelle, who sought a declaration that she was the deceased's common-law spouse for OMERS pension survivor benefits.

The Estate argued that the internal OMERS Dispute Resolution Process was a more suitable forum.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the OMERS process was a valid avenue, the Superior Court application was also appropriate given the factual complexity, credibility issues, significant value of the benefit, and greater flexibility for settlement and witness accommodation in court proceedings.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the Upper Hunt Club Community Association against the City's approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a residential care facility.

The parties resolved most of the draft Procedural Order but disputed four items on the Issues List.

The Tribunal ruled on the contested issues, striking speculative and redundant language, finalized the Issues List, and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The defendant, having previously obtained summary judgment establishing the third party's obligation to indemnify her for liabilities arising from commercial loans, sought summary judgment for $150,000, representing the amount she paid to settle the plaintiff bank's claims against her.

The court found the settlement amount to be reasonable given the risks and potential liabilities involved, and granted judgment for $150,000 plus costs.

The court also granted a temporary stay of enforcement to allow the self-represented third party, who is subject to a vexatious litigant order, an opportunity to launch an appeal.