Paul Morrissey

This decision addresses the costs arising from an application where the applicant successfully sought directions regarding her parents' estates, resulting in the removal of the respondents as co-estate trustees.

The applicant sought full recovery of her costs, proposing that substantial indemnity costs be paid by the respondents and the balance from the estates.

The court found the respondents' conduct, including failure to fulfill their obligations, preferring self-interest, and non-compliance with court orders, to be "reprehensible and outrageous." Consequently, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis for the initial phase of the litigation (Part A) and on a substantial indemnity basis for the subsequent phases (Parts B and C) directly caused by the respondents' intransigence.

The applicant's full indemnity costs were fixed at $78,802.63, with the respondents ordered to pay $60,821.50, and the remaining $17,981.13 to be paid from the estates.

The applicant and her two brothers were co-estate trustees and sole beneficiaries of their parents' estates.

The parties reached an impasse regarding the valuation of estate assets, the ownership of a collection of firearms, and the filing of tax returns.

The applicant sought to have her brothers removed as co-estate trustees due to their refusal to accept professional appraisals, sign the cheque for the Estate Administration Tax, and cooperate in the administration of the estate.

The court found that the brothers' conduct brought the administration of the estate to a standstill and compromised its due administration.

The court ordered the brothers removed as estate trustees, leaving the applicant as the sole estate trustee, and directed them to sign the necessary tax cheque and provide information regarding the disputed firearms.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion brought by Robert Evans for disclosure regarding bank accounts of the deceased.

The applicant had made an offer to settle that was not accepted by the respondents.

The court found the applicant was completely successful on the motion and was entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer, pursuant to Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs totaling $11,737.97.

The plaintiff, a beneficiary of his grandmother's estate, brought a motion for directions and a Norwich Order against the estate trustees.

The plaintiff sought disclosure of the identity of a third party who received the bulk of the deceased's assets through a joint bank account with right of survivorship, which was funded by the sale of the deceased's home while the trustees acted under a Power of Attorney.

Applying the test for a Norwich Order, the court found the plaintiff had a bona fide claim and that disclosure was necessary in the interests of justice to determine if funds were improperly diverted.

The court ordered the trustees to disclose the identity of the joint account holder and produce all related banking documents.

The plaintiff condominium corporation sued the adjacent property owner for damages to its easement rights due to the defendant's failure to maintain a shared retaining wall, pleading negligence and nuisance.

The defendant, third parties (Development Engineering (London) Limited, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada), and fourth party (Atkinson, Davies Inc.) brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court found no common law, statutory, contractual, or equitable duty for the servient tenement (defendant) to repair the wall, especially since the defendant was not responsible for its initial collapse.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The court also found that the defendant, third parties, and fourth party were not concurrent tortfeasors, thus precluding claims for contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act.