Payam Ezzatian

This costs decision follows the court's substantive orders of September 23, 2025 (2025 ONSC 4703).

The applicants sought $65,000 in costs based on a legal bill of $115,110.

Steven Jackson and 2131376 Ontario Ltd. sought $58,407 based on a legal bill of $93,185.

Peter Jackson claimed $21,719 based on a legal bill of $33,014.

The court found that the applicants' allegations of domestic abuse and misappropriation, which failed to be proven, escalated the litigation.

The court awarded costs to Peter Jackson in the amount of $21,719.44 on a partial indemnity scale, payable by the applicants.

No costs were awarded as between the applicants and Steven Jackson and 2131376 Ontario Ltd.

This case arose from a family dispute following a corporate restructuring in September 2020 involving two patio furnishings businesses operated by spouses Kimberley and Steven Jackson.

The applicants sought to invalidate the transfer of nine shares in Distinctly Patio Inc. (DPI) to their son Peter, claiming the transfer was funded through an unauthorized bonus paid by DPI to Peter.

The applicants also sought an accounting for profits allegedly earned by 2131376 Ontario Ltd. (operating as Think Patio) in violation of a non-competition clause in the DPI shareholders' agreement.

The respondents relied on a two-year limitation period defense.

The court found that while Peter became a shareholder despite not signing the shareholders' agreement, the applicants' claims based on the bonus and share transfer were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the constructive trust claim on the merits, finding insufficient evidence of misappropriation.

However, the court found that Steven and 2131376 likely breached the non-competition clause and ordered an accounting reference.

The court also granted Peter's counterapplication for oppression remedies, ordering DPI to redeem his shares for $17,167.42.

The plaintiff, Richard Ross Shaker, sought to add Katie Miller as a defendant to his action for intrusion upon seclusion, but the court found the claim against her was statute-barred.

The decision turns on when the plaintiff discovered he had a claim against Ms. Miller.

The court held that by July 27, 2022, the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the material facts to commence a claim, and later-acquired information only affected the scope of damages, not discoverability.

The motion to amend the claim to add Ms. Miller was dismissed.

The applicant sought the return of a $37,500 deposit after the respondent terminated an Agreement of Purchase and Sale due to the applicant's unauthorized attempt to assign the property.

The court found that the applicant breached clear contractual clauses prohibiting assignment without prior written consent, which was not obtained.

The court rejected arguments of contractual ambiguity, unreasonableness in the respondent's discretion, and unconscionability of the forfeiture, finding the deposit proportionate and the forfeiture not exceptional.

The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant, a judgment creditor, appealed the dismissal of an application seeking a declaration of entitlement to the balance of matrimonial home sale proceeds, which were held in trust as security for the ex-husband's future child and spousal support obligations.

A writ of execution had been registered against the ex-husband's interest prior to the divorce order.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in interpreting the relevant jurisprudence and in failing to address the court's fundamental duty regarding child support.

The discovery of the writ of execution constituted a material change in circumstances.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was remitted to the trial judge to consider whether a variation of the Divorce Judgment was appropriate in light of the material change.

Following the dismissal of the application, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $15,084.47.

The applicant argued the amount should be between $4,152.75 and $5,339.25.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01(1) and the principle of proportionality, the court fixed costs at $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the importance of the case to the respondent and the legal issues involved.

The applicant, a judgment creditor of the respondent's ex-husband, sought a declaration of entitlement to the ex-husband's share of the proceeds from the sale of a matrimonial home.

The proceeds had been ordered held in trust by a judge in the divorce proceedings to secure future child and spousal support obligations.

The applicant argued that his writ of seizure and sale had priority under the Creditors' Relief Act.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the trust was validly created under the court's equitable jurisdiction and the Divorce Act, and that any attempt to vary the order must be brought within the matrimonial proceedings rather than as a collateral attack.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the plaintiffs to amend their Statement of Claim, substituting "John Doe" defendants with specific named defendants (the Hurley defendants).

The plaintiffs sought partial-indemnity costs of $10,457.32.

The Hurley defendants argued for costs in the cause or a reduction in the amount.

The court, applying the principle that costs follow the event, awarded the plaintiffs $9,000 in partial indemnity costs, inclusive of HST, payable within 60 days.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim to replace 'John Doe Retailer' and 'John Doe Installer' with the names of the specific defendants who sold and installed a furnace that allegedly caused a fire.

The proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing the limitation period had expired and they had no notice of the claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the 'litigation finger' clearly pointed at the proposed defendants and that actual notice or due diligence is not required to correct a misnomer under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Limitations Act, 2002.

A seller and buyer entered into an agreement for the purchase and sale of a warehouse for $10,225,000.

The buyer intended to establish a licensed marijuana grow-op business.

The agreement provided for an initial deposit of $300,000, and the buyer paid an additional deposit of $450,000 to obtain a six-month extension of the closing date.

When the buyer failed to obtain Health Canada licensing and financing and failed to close, the seller sought to forfeit the entire $750,000 deposit.

The application judge found the forfeiture unconscionable and reduced it to $350,000.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the deposit was not grossly disproportionate and that unconscionability must be an exceptional finding strongly compelled by the facts.

The court restored the full contractual forfeiture of $750,000.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order to compel the plaintiff to attend a further defence orthopedic examination.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court applied the seven-factor test from Bonello v. Taylor, 2010 ONSC 5723, for ordering further examinations.

The court noted that the defendants had previously chosen a physiatrist for examination despite knowing the plaintiff would rely on an orthopedic surgeon's report.

No significant change in the plaintiff's condition was demonstrated, and the defendants' own physiatrist's addendum report confirmed his original opinion remained unaltered, even after new information about a subsequent accident.

The court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate the necessity for a second physical examination and dismissed the motion.

The defendants, Economical Insurance Group and Perth Insurance Company, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The core dispute was whether the plaintiff's newly acquired motorcycle was covered under his existing auto policy, which the defendants argued was voided because the plaintiff owned another uninsured, allegedly inoperable vehicle.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding what the plaintiff's insurance broker told him about coverage.

The court declined to order a mini-trial, concluding it would not be in the interests of justice to hear the broker's evidence piecemeal.

The plaintiff in a civil action for damages arising from an alleged assault brought a motion to validate late and irregular service of an amended statement of claim on three defendants.

Two defendants had been personally served after the six‑month service period prescribed by Rule 14.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure had expired, while the third had only been served by mail without prior authorization for substituted service.

The court considered whether to extend time and validate service under Rule 3.01, focusing on whether the defendants suffered actual prejudice from the delay.

Relying on appellate guidance emphasizing prejudice rather than counsel’s conduct, the court found no evidence of actual prejudice despite the expiry of the limitation period.

Service was validated and the time for service extended, with time for delivery of statements of defence also extended.