Patrick Bakos

The applicants sought to set aside a sheriff's sale of their property, which was conducted to satisfy outstanding costs awards.

They alleged the sale was improvident, the required process was not followed, and they did not receive proper notice.

The court found that the sale price was not improvident based on a realtor's opinion, the auction was properly conducted, and the applicants had actual notice of the sale despite a minor procedural non-compliance with posting requirements.

The application was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the Crown's appeal from costs ordered against it in forfeiture proceedings under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the respondents sought costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal declined to award costs, noting that costs are generally not awarded against the Crown in criminal proceedings absent a Charter infringement, serious Crown misconduct, or exceptional circumstances.

The court found no serious misconduct by the Crown on the appeal itself, and no exceptional circumstances justifying a costs award.

Furthermore, the court noted that section 683 of the Criminal Code precludes a costs award on the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel regarding a costs award made by a Hearing Panel that had recused itself.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Appeal Panel's decision.

The Court dismissed most of the appellant's arguments, finding the Appeal Panel reasonably concluded that both parties were at fault for failing to raise a conflict of interest issue earlier, and that success was divided on a bias motion.

However, the Court reduced the costs awarded to the Law Society for a motion to exclude evidence by 50%, as the parties agreed the motion took less time than the Appeal Panel had estimated.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a dismissed summary judgment motion brought by the defendant, Klein-Rose Homes Inc., under the Construction Lien Act.

The court applied section 86 of the CLA, which grants broad discretion in awarding costs in construction lien proceedings, and considered the Rules of Civil Procedure where not inconsistent.

The plaintiff, Allcon Concrete & Haulage Ltd., was the successful party on the underlying motion and sought costs.

The court fixed costs at $26,560 for the plaintiff, payable upon the plaintiff's success at trial or a subsequent summary judgment motion in proving the validity of its claim for lien, irrespective of the full success on the contract claim or defense against the counterclaim.

The court rejected the defendant's argument to reserve costs to the trial judge and the plaintiff's assertion of the defendant's "unduly aggressive and unreasonable" conduct.

The Crown appealed a nearly $1 million costs award made against it after its unsuccessful application to forfeit two properties under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The application judge found the Crown's conduct, including pursuing a meritless application against innocent third parties and taking an intransigent attitude, amounted to a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable standards.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Ontario Court of Justice has an implied power to award costs in CDSA forfeiture applications, the correct standard was applied, and the quantum of costs was reasonable.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which had set aside a Hearing Panel's dismissal of professional misconduct complaints related to mortgage transactions.

The Appeal Panel found the Hearing Panel erred in law by incorrectly defining fraud and by concluding a lawyer need not disclose material facts if they reasonably believe the lender already knows them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that a lawyer has a strict duty to disclose all material facts to a lender client, and that the Appeal Panel reasonably concluded the Hearing Panel's legal errors rendered its factual findings unsafe.

The appellant purchaser sought the return of its deposit after aborting a commercial real estate transaction due to environmental issues and a Ministry of the Environment Certificate of Prohibition registered on title.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding the purchaser had waived the environmental condition and failed to adduce evidence that it had not received the environmental order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the waiver of the environmental condition effectively waived the title objection, and that the purchaser bore the evidentiary burden on summary judgment to prove it had not received the order.

The applicants sought an order permitting them to set off amounts arising from a tenant's realty tax overpayment against a vendor take back loan owed by a related purchaser to the respondent vendor.

The court held that an email exchange between counsel constituted a binding waiver of all rights and remedies relating to the rent rolls and estoppel certificates for the North Bay property, including any right of set-off.

Although the decision reviewed the principles governing legal and equitable set-off, the motion failed on contractual waiver.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to three innocent third parties following the Crown's unsuccessful forfeiture application under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties without evidence of complicity or collusion by the owners.

The court found the Crown's conduct constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable prosecution standards, including failure to conduct proper disclosure, misrepresentation to the Superior Court regarding mortgage law, and proceeding with a meritless application.

The court awarded substantial costs to FirstOntario and reduced costs to Fercan and GRVN, considering factors including proportionality, duplication of services, and the applicants' own litigation positions.

Following the dismissal of a motion for leave to appeal, the successful responding parties sought costs.

They submitted a joint draft bill of costs reflecting fees, disbursements, and HST, with a reduction applied for duplication of work between two law firms.

The court found the respondents entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis and held that the draft bill appropriately reflected the Rule 57.01 factors, including the complexity of the proceeding and late amendments to the grounds of appeal.

The moving party accepted the claimed amount but requested a deduction to account for an outstanding prior costs order.

The court fixed costs accordingly after deducting the outstanding amount.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action arising from a failed agreement of purchase and sale for contaminated industrial property and sought entitlement to retain a $50,000 deposit.

The purchaser had waived an environmental condition in the agreement after receiving information regarding contamination and a Ministry of the Environment prohibition order registered on title.

The court held that the purchaser knowingly accepted the environmental risks when it waived the condition and took an assignment of the agreement, and was not entitled to refuse closing on the basis that the order had not been removed from title.

The court concluded that no genuine issue requiring a trial existed under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that the vendor was entitled to retain the deposit.

Summary judgment dismissing the action was granted.

Costs decision following a motion by the Attorney General seeking a stay of an order pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The underlying order directed that more than $4 million seized in an in rem forfeiture proceeding be released to the respondents.

The court found that although the Attorney General brought the motion on very short notice, the respondents’ opposition was unreasonable given the risk that releasing the funds could render the appeal moot and cause irreparable harm by allowing the money to leave the jurisdiction.

However, the respondents should not bear costs that would have been incurred even if the motion had been brought on consent.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs payable by two respondents jointly and severally.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing a motion for the interim preservation of over $4 million under the Civil Remedies Act.

The funds were the proceeds of the sale of a commercial property previously housing an illegal marijuana grow operation and later leased to a company involved in a stock fraud scheme.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's finding that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the property was an instrument of unlawful activity.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The applicants sought costs awards against the Crown following the dismissal of the Crown's forfeiture applications under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties allegedly used in connection with marijuana grow operations.

The court found that the Crown's conduct in commencing restraint and forfeiture applications against innocent third parties, without evidence of complicity or collusion, constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution.

The Crown failed to properly assess available evidence before proceeding and maintained an intransigent "hardball" attitude throughout the proceedings.

The court determined that costs awards were warranted.

Following the dismissal of a motion seeking interim relief compelling a plaintiff to disentangle its business from that of the defendants, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The responding party sought substantial indemnity costs relying on Rule 49.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure based on an earlier offer to settle proposing dismissal of the motion without costs.

The court held that the rule did not apply in the circumstances because the motion had been brought by the defendants and the offer did not trigger the cost consequences claimed.

Exercising discretion under Rule 57.03 and considering concessions made during the motion and the broader context of the dispute, the court fixed costs of $15,000 payable in the cause.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion under the Civil Remedies Act for an order to preserve over $4 million, representing the sale proceeds of a commercial property.

The property had previously housed a massive, concealed marijuana grow operation run by tenants, and was later leased to a company involved in a U.S. stock fraud scheme.

The court found no issue estoppel from prior unsuccessful federal criminal forfeiture proceedings against the property owner.

While the court found reasonable grounds to believe the property was an instrument of unlawful activity due to the grow operation, it ultimately dismissed the preservation motion.

The court concluded that preserving the funds would clearly not be in the interests of justice, as the owner had no knowledge of or participation in the unlawful activities, making a preservation order manifestly harsh and draconian.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion seeking an interim injunction and declaration allowing it to continue operating events at the defendants’ theatre premises based on an alleged oral agreement requiring monthly payments.

The court found the plaintiff’s evidentiary record incomplete and noted the parties’ ongoing negotiations, the plaintiff’s stopped payment of rent, and the termination of a prior management arrangement.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured injunctive relief, particularly where damages would be monetary and the requested relief resembled a mandatory injunction.

The court also declined to order an amendment to the statement of claim to add an injunction claim, noting the pleading required broader amendments.

The motion was adjourned to Motion Scheduling Court and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant corporation sought an injunction to prevent approval of contracts related to a proposed light rail transit project in the Region of Waterloo.

The court found the applicant lacked standing, noting it was recently incorporated, had unknown ownership, and possessed no apparent assets or ratepayer status.

The court further held the principal failed to disclose a personal interest arising from expropriation of his property connected to the project, undermining the equitable basis for relief.

The applicant failed to provide an undertaking for damages, did not establish a strong prima facie case under the Planning Act, and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a balance of convenience favouring relief.

The application for an injunction was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought revocation of two restraint orders issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and return of property proceeds held by the Seized Property Management Directorate Branch.

The Crown had previously dismissed its forfeiture application after over 35 days of hearings, finding no evidence of complicity or collusion on the part of the applicants.

The court granted the application, ordering revocation of the restraint orders and distribution of the remaining proceeds pursuant to a consent order among the interested parties.

The court rejected the Crown's request for a 90-day adjournment to allow the Civil Remedies Office to investigate whether to commence separate proceedings, finding such a referral constituted an abuse of process and an attempt to relitigate issues already determined.

The Crown sought forfeiture of two properties under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the discovery of sophisticated marijuana grow operations.

The first property, a former Molson Brewery plant in Barrie, contained two large indoor grow operations operated by individuals convicted of production and trafficking offences.

The second property was a residential dwelling in Phelpston owned by a company controlled by the respondent's brother.

The Crown alleged that the property owners and their corporations were complicit in or colluded with the drug offences.

The respondents argued they were innocent third parties unaware of the illegal activities occurring on their properties.