Paul M. Fay

Costs decision following a property dispute in which both parties claimed title to a cottage.

The plaintiff advanced claims based on proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment, while the defendant estate sought clear title.

The trial judgment granted the plaintiff a 15‑year licence to use the property, producing a mixed outcome.

In determining costs, the court considered proportionality and the factors under s.131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as settlement offers that did not engage Rule 49.

Finding the plaintiff was more successful overall, the court ordered the defendant estate to pay the plaintiff fixed costs of $50,000 all‑inclusive.

The plaintiff sought enforcement of an alleged promise that a cottage would be left to her by will after she maintained, improved, and paid expenses for the property over approximately 25 years.

The estate denied that any enforceable promise existed and argued the plaintiff’s use of the cottage offset her expenditures.

The court found that the deceased had repeatedly encouraged the belief that the cottage would eventually be left to the plaintiff and that she relied on that expectation by investing significant labour and money into the property.

The court held that the elements of proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment were established.

Instead of granting ownership or a monetary award, the court imposed an equitable remedy granting the plaintiff a 15‑year exclusive licence to occupy the cottage subject to payment of taxes, insurance, and utilities.