Paul D'Angelo

The court considered whether the plaintiffs could pursue a negligence action against a lawyer who drafted a will, after a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will (CAETW) had been granted.

The plaintiffs alleged the will failed to reflect the testator’s intentions, resulting in a partial intestacy.

The court held that the action was a collateral attack on the CAETW, which is conclusive as to the will’s validity and contents, and dismissed the action.

The court also addressed the principles of summary judgment, the legal effect of probate, and awarded costs to the defendants.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an application where Mostofa Miah, operating Mia's Indian Cuisine, successfully obtained injunctive relief and a declaration that his lease and lease extension agreement were valid against his landlord, 1000087635 Ontario Inc. The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to Miah, finding that the landlord's conduct throughout the litigation, including asserting a non-existent lease invalidity, making unfounded accusations, and engaging in dilatory tactics, warranted an elevated costs award.

The applicant, a federal election candidate, sought an extension to file his electoral campaign return under s. 477.68 of the Canada Elections Act, having missed statutory deadlines.

He also sought relief from the consequences of non-compliance under s. 477.7 of the Act.

The court determined it lacked the power to extend the deadline for bringing the s. 477.68 application, aligning with recent jurisprudence that statutory deadlines require express parliamentary discretion for extension.

However, the court granted relief under s. 477.7, finding the applicant was unaware of his official agent's failure to file the return on time and that the agent-designate took reasonable steps to rectify the situation once discovered.

The court directed the Chief Electoral Officer to accept the return as if filed by the deadline, with no costs awarded.

This costs endorsement followed a successful motion by the plaintiff's solicitors, Victor Ages Vallance LLP (VAV), to assert a solicitor's lien and obtain a charging order over a $48,000 costs award owed to their client.

The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), a judgment creditor, opposed this relief and sought to garnish the funds, and subsequently requested to set off the costs awarded to VAV against an earlier costs award owed by the plaintiff to CPC.

The court awarded VAV partial indemnity costs for their successful motion, albeit reduced from their requested amount due to some over-lawyering.

The court denied CPC's request for set-off, reasoning that it would unfairly penalize the solicitors for asserting a valid right.

The plaintiff's solicitors, Victor Ages Vallance LLP (VAV), sought a declaration of a valid solicitor's lien and a charging order under section 34(1) of the Solicitors Act over $47,886 in costs awarded to the plaintiff.

These funds were held in trust by counsel for Arthur Hamilton and Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP.

The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), a creditor of the plaintiff, opposed the relief, asserting a garnishment notice and arguing for an equitable set-off.

The court found that the fund came into existence due to VAV's efforts, establishing a solicitor's lien with priority over garnishment.

The court rejected the equitable set-off argument due to a lack of mutuality of debts.

The charging order was granted, directing the funds to be paid to VAV.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim in a simplified procedure trial, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff argued for no costs due to divided success, while the defendant sought elevated costs based on a Rule 49 offer.

The court found the defendant was the successful party as the counterclaim was not pursued.

However, elevated costs were denied because the Rule 49 offer was silent on the counterclaim and potentially out of time.

Applying the principle of proportionality for simplified procedure cases, the court awarded the defendant costs fixed at $15,000 on a reduced partial indemnity basis.

The respondents brought a motion to consolidate an application with an action.

During cross-examinations on affidavits, the applicant refused to answer several questions, leading to this refusals motion.

The Master ordered the applicant to answer questions regarding the merits of the application and his understanding of contractual documents, finding that the parol evidence rule does not preclude such questions at the cross-examination stage.

However, the Master upheld the applicant's claim of solicitor-client privilege over documents in a mediation file, finding no blanket waiver of privilege.

The plaintiff, a former Member of Parliament and cabinet minister, sued the prime minister, his senior advisors, and others for conspiracy, defamation, and other torts following her removal from cabinet and the Conservative Party caucus.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the decisions to remove the plaintiff from cabinet and caucus were protected by Crown prerogative and parliamentary privilege, respectively, and were therefore not justiciable.

The court also held that communications between the prime minister and his advisors were protected by absolute privilege, and that the Conservative Party of Canada, as an unincorporated association, lacked the capacity to be sued.