Orie Niedzviecki

The plaintiff accountant joined the defendant accounting firm under an unwritten resource-sharing or partnership arrangement.

After the relationship broke down, the plaintiff sued for unpaid compensation and the return of a capital contribution, while the defendants counterclaimed for misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation.

The court found an implied agreement for compensation based on the parties' conduct and awarded the plaintiff $71,223 for unpaid 2014 compensation plus the return of her $40,000 capital contribution.

However, the court also found that the plaintiff defamed the defendants by calling them 'crooks' to a client, awarding the defendants $30,000 on their counterclaim.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for unpaid amounts under a contract for the construction of a custom home.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff breached the contract through delays, poor workmanship, and misrepresentations, and argued they were justified in refusing further payments and denying the plaintiff access to the property to fix deficiencies.

The court found that the defendants repudiated the contract by refusing to pay and locking the plaintiff out, while the plaintiff remained willing to complete the work.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed, and liability was found in favour of the plaintiff, with damages to be determined at a later hearing.

The Executor sought full indemnity costs of $28,911.33 to be paid personally by the Objectors following a hearing with mixed results regarding the passing of accounts.

The Objectors sought full indemnity costs of $19,155.50.

The court found that the hearing had mixed results and neither party made an offer to settle.

Applying the modern approach to estate costs based on fairness and proportionality, the court ordered the Estate to pay fixed costs of $13,500 plus HST to both the Executor and the Objectors.

The appellant appealed a judgment of less than $50,000 to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that it was properly brought to the Divisional Court due to the monetary amount.

No costs were awarded.

The applicants objected to the passing of accounts by the respondent estate trustee for both the pre-death and post-death periods.

The court passed the pre-death accounts but denied compensation to the trustee for that period, finding she acted merely as an agent and was already adequately compensated by the deceased.

For the post-death period, the court passed the accounts but reduced the trustee's compensation to 1.5% due to her role in generating hostility and litigation.

The court also ordered the estate to pay the trustee's legal fees of $80,479.97.

Following the dismissal of an application to admit a suicide note as a holograph will, the court determined the costs payable to the successful respondents.

The court found that the applicant acted unreasonably in pursuing the application to oust legacies in the prior will, but acknowledged the estate bore some responsibility due to the testator's actions.

The court ordered blended costs, with the applicant paying a significant portion and the remainder payable out of the estate.

The applicant sought to admit the deceased's suicide note into probate as a holograph will.

The deceased had a history of heavy alcohol and drug use and wrote the profanity-laced note shortly before taking his own life, attempting to disinherit his spouse.

The court found that suspicious circumstances existed, shifting the burden to the applicant to prove testamentary capacity.

Given the evidence of the deceased's intoxication and the lack of a definitive expert opinion on capacity, the court concluded the applicant failed to meet the burden.

The application to admit the note as a holograph will was dismissed.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought $60,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The defendant argued the amount was excessive and proposed $39,519.26.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the plaintiff's success and the moderate complexity of the matter.

Finding the plaintiff's counsel's hourly rate and hours spent to be somewhat high, the court fixed costs at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff, founder and former president of the defendant company, was terminated without cause three years after selling his shares to a purchaser.

The defendant relied on a termination provision and release signed at the time of the sale to limit his notice.

The court found the termination provision and release void for violating the Employment Standards Act by excluding his pre-sale years of service.

The court awarded the plaintiff 24 months of common law reasonable notice, including base salary, benefits, and lost bonus potential, but dismissed his claim for moral damages.

The franchisor defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a franchisee action and judgment on a counterclaim following termination of four franchise agreements without notice.

The franchisees alleged breaches including failure to provide notice and violation of the duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court held the terminations were justified due to substantial defaults amounting to acts of bankruptcy and rejected arguments based on estoppel and statutory good faith.

The plaintiffs also failed to produce basic financial documentation capable of proving lost profits, rendering their damages claim unsustainable.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action, while the counterclaim was left for trial due to disputed facts.