Paul E. Trenker

This decision concerns the assessment of costs following a successful trial where the plaintiff, Steele Industrial Supplies Inc., proved that the defendant, Sharon Elliott, had stolen $204,670.

Steele sought partial indemnity costs of $72,177.58.

The defendants argued for a lower award, contending that the plaintiff's initial evidentiary shortcomings and expanded expert scope unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding.

The court, applying the principles under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, found the proceeding complex and the costs sought by the plaintiff to be fair and reasonable, especially considering the defendants' significantly lower settlement offer.

The court dismissed the defendants' arguments regarding the plaintiff's conduct and ordered the defendants to pay the full amount of costs sought.

In matrimonial proceedings, the court held a focused hearing to determine the beneficial ownership of a property gratuitously transferred by the respondent to himself and his adult son as joint tenants.

The applicant argued for a resulting trust, while the respondent contended it was a gift.

The court found that the respondent failed to provide clear, convincing, and cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of resulting trust, concluding that the respondent remained the beneficial owner of his son's one-half interest in the property.

The plaintiff employer sued its former bookkeeper and her husband's estate for damages resulting from employee theft.

The bookkeeper had previously pleaded guilty to fraud and paid $100,000 in restitution, but the employer claimed the stolen amount was much higher.

Following a summary judgment motion, a trial of the issue was ordered to determine the exact amount stolen and the extent of the husband's unjust enrichment.

Relying on forensic accounting evidence and estimating the loss despite destroyed records, the court found the bookkeeper stole $204,670.

The claim for unjust enrichment against the husband's estate was dismissed due to insufficient evidence to quantify the enrichment.

Judgment was granted for the remaining $104,670.

The applicant initiated an application to enforce an agreement for a parcel of land that the respondent had failed to sign.

Before the application was heard, the respondent signed the agreement, rendering the primary relief sought moot.

The sole remaining issue was the applicant's entitlement to costs.

The court found that the application was reasonably commenced and was abandoned due to the respondent's actions.

Consequently, the applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $3,500, rejecting the respondent's argument for no costs and the applicant's request for substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, Steele Industrial Supplies Inc., sued its former bookkeeper, Sharon Elliott, and the estate of her late husband for damages arising from theft and unjust enrichment.

Steele moved for summary judgment, while the defendants cross-moved to dismiss the action on the basis that it was statute-barred by the limitation period.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the limitation period commenced when Elliott confessed to the theft, not when the fraud was merely suspected.

The court allowed Steele's motion in part, establishing Elliott's liability for the misappropriated funds and the Estate's liability for unjust enrichment, but determined that the precise quantum of damages required a trial due to conflicting expert evidence.

A trial management conference was ordered to address the damages issue and costs.

The appellant, Officer in Charge of North Bay Regional Health Centre, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision ordering the transfer of an involuntary civil patient, Peter Armstrong, from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health to North Bay's forensic program under section 41.1 of the Mental Health Act.

North Bay argued its policy precluded placing civil patients in forensic beds and that the Board erred in jurisdiction and by failing to consider the facility's ability to manage care.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had jurisdiction to override hospital policy and that its decision was reasonable, supported by detailed reasons and evidence that North Bay could manage the patient.

The parties separated after 16 years of marriage due to the respondent's posttraumatic stress disorder.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family properties.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, imputed the respondent's income to account for non-taxable benefits, and ordered time-limited spousal support.

The court also ordered the respondent to satisfy the equalization payment via a lump sum transfer from his pension, declining the applicant's request to transfer the matrimonial home as the court lacked authority to redistribute property for that purpose.

The applicant, Angela Paulsen, brought a motion to determine the date of separation and to extend the limitation period for her property equalization claim, including pension division.

The court found the date of separation to be September 1, 2008, based on the parties' disclosure to their children.

The court granted the extension of the limitation period under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act, finding that the delay was incurred in good faith due to blameless ignorance regarding pension divisibility, and that the respondent, Keith Paulsen, would not suffer substantial prejudice.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to add the principal of the defendant corporation as a party defendant.

The proposed defendant argued the motion was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period was extended by email correspondence or, alternatively, that the amendment corrected a misnomer.

The court found the emails did not extend the limitation period as they were sent on behalf of the corporation, not the individual personally.

The court also held the amendment sought to add an entirely new party, not correct a misnomer, and dismissed the motion as statute-barred.

On a family law motion concerning spousal support following a 41‑year marriage, the respondent husband sought support of $750 per month while the applicant wife proposed $266 per month.

The primary issue concerned the proper calculation of the wife’s income from a trailer park business and related expenses reflected in her income tax return and appraisal materials.

The court adjusted certain expense deductions and determined an appropriate income figure for the wife by selecting a midpoint between competing income calculations.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court concluded the guideline range supported a monthly payment of approximately $486 to $496.

An interim order requiring the wife to pay $496 per month commencing October 1, 2014 was granted, with retroactive support to be determined at trial.

The respondent husband brought a motion to reduce spousal support following his retirement and significant reduction in employment income.

The court considered the parties’ financial circumstances, including the husband’s pension income, the earlier equalization of pension benefits, and the recipient spouse’s medical inability to work.

Relying on the principles articulated in Boston v. Boston, the court held that while the payor was entitled to some reduction in support after retirement, the recipient’s ongoing financial needs and lack of income remained significant.

Balancing these considerations, the court reduced the spousal support payable from $2400 per month to $1350 per month commencing January 1, 2014.

The defendants brought a motion seeking relief from forfeiture under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act after breaching a settlement agreement that required installment payments totaling $250,000.

The defendants had already paid $155,000 but failed to pay the final $95,000 by the deadline, triggering a contractual clause entitling the plaintiff to judgment for the full $250,000 without credit for prior payments.

The court considered the distinction between penalties and forfeiture and held that enforcing the clause would produce an unconscionable forfeiture because it would permit the plaintiff to recover $405,000 for a settlement valued at $250,000.

The court granted equitable relief from forfeiture and rescinded the earlier judgment.

A new judgment was issued only for the unpaid balance of $95,000 plus interest.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for default on a mortgage, a line of credit, and a credit card.

The default arose after the defendants failed to pay property tax arrears, prompting the bank to pay the arrears and demand repayment.

The defendants argued they believed the bank was paying the property taxes from their mortgage payments, but provided no evidence to support this claim.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mortgage documents clearly did not include property taxes, and granted summary judgment in favour of the bank.

This is a costs decision following a final order on custody and access issues in a family law matter.

The respondent sought costs of $5,000 plus disbursements and HST totalling $6,001.74 based on obtaining a final order substantially in accord with a section 112 assessment.

The applicant argued costs should be limited to the preparation and argument of the summary judgment motion only, in the $500 range.

The court awarded partial recovery costs of $2,400 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $200 per month commencing January 1, 2013, enforceable as an incident of support.

A paternal grandmother sought access to her two grandchildren following a breakdown in her relationship with the children's parents.

The grandmother had previously provided regular child care and logistical support but was denied all contact with the children after February 2011 when she withdrew her assistance.

The court dismissed the grandmother's motion for temporary access, finding that although the parents acted somewhat arbitrarily in severing contact, the relationship bonds had dissipated over the two-year period of separation and the ongoing acrimony between the parties posed too great a risk to the children's wellbeing to justify court-ordered access.

The applicant father sought a temporary order for child support and spousal support from the respondent mother.

The parties had cohabited since 2001 and had two children but never married.

They separated in April 2012 and shared custody on a week-about basis.

The applicant claimed he was unable to work due to medical issues and had no income.

The respondent, a registered nurse earning $83,000 annually, opposed the application and argued the applicant was intentionally underemployed.

The court imputed income to the applicant based on his capacity to earn as a skilled tradesperson and ordered the respondent to pay child support using the set-off method.

No spousal support was awarded.

The moving party sought summary judgment to enforce minutes of settlement arising from an alleged failure by the responding parties to comply with an accepted offer.

The motion was brought under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed documentary evidence and affidavits relating to whether the moving party’s contractual rights had been assigned to a corporate entity prior to the settlement agreement.

The court concluded that the evidentiary record raised a genuine issue requiring a trial, including questions regarding the assignment of rights and the parties’ conduct following the purported settlement.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

A corporate plaintiff sought recovery of $96,500 allegedly transferred without authorization from its account to another corporation’s account to cover overdrafts.

The defendant credit union maintained the transfers were authorized by the principal of the plaintiff company and documented through telephone instructions and account records.

The court found that the transfers were authorized and that the plaintiff had received monthly statements and supporting documentation reflecting the transactions without timely objection.

In any event, the claim was barred both by the contractual verification provision requiring disputes within 30 days and by the applicable six‑year limitation period.

The action was dismissed.