Peter A. Douglas

Following partial judgment in an application concerning whether an easement of necessity existed to access landlocked property, the court addressed costs.

The court had previously determined that an easement of necessity existed over one parcel of land, leaving the precise route of the easement to be determined at trial if the parties could not agree.

The applicant achieved substantial success on the central issue of the existence of the easement.

However, one corporate respondent was entirely successful because no easement was granted over its property.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant against certain respondents while also awarding costs to the successful corporate respondent against the applicant.

Following a motion for an interlocutory injunction relating to access to a disputed property, the court had granted temporary relief preserving the status quo pending a future motion to vacate a certificate of pending litigation.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing it had been successful on the motion.

The responding parties argued that costs should be reserved because the interim order did not finally determine the merits and was granted only pending the return of the injunction motion.

The court agreed that a proper assessment of success required fuller consideration of the merits and therefore reserved the costs of the motion to the judge hearing the motion on its return.

Following dismissal of a support payor’s motion seeking to stay child and spousal support obligations, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court confirmed the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and considered factors including the parties’ conduct, proportionality of fees, and the impact of an unaccepted offer to settle.

Although the successful party sought full indemnity costs exceeding $24,000, the court found certain billings duplicative and limited the effect of the offer to settle to the period after its delivery.

The court fixed costs at $9,000 payable by the unsuccessful party in monthly installments.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the defendants from entering or conducting demolition activities on a property following a power of sale transaction that the plaintiff alleged was improvident and non-arm’s length.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions and found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the plaintiff retained an interest in the property.

Given existing demolition preparations and the plaintiff’s development plans, the court found a risk of irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured temporary restraint.

The court granted a limited interlocutory injunction pending further proceedings relating to a motion to vacate a certificate of pending litigation.

Following a lengthy family law trial involving custody, access, support, property, and related issues after marital breakdown, the court assessed credibility concerns regarding the father’s financial disclosure and evidence.

The court found the father’s testimony unreliable and concluded he had concealed income and assets.

Income was imputed to the father for support purposes under the Child Support Guidelines.

The mother was granted sole custody with consultation obligations, and the children were to primarily reside with her while the father received structured access.

Claims for restraining orders and spousal support were dismissed, and equalization claims were stayed due to bankruptcy.

Following reasons for decision on a motion concerning undertakings and security for costs in a simplified procedure action, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving parties had succeeded on the motion but obtained a reduced form of the relief originally sought, including a lower amount of security for costs.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the moving parties achieved partial success and that the motion was not complex.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs payable by the responding party and also directed the form in which security for costs must be posted.

In an estate dispute, the respondent sought removal of the applicant as estate trustee, while the applicant brought a cross‑motion seeking the respondent’s removal.

The dispute arose from significant conflict between the deceased’s spouse and daughter over the administration of the estate and the disposition of the estate’s principal asset, shares in a nail salon business.

The court reviewed the governing principles for removal of trustees, emphasizing that clear evidence of necessity and risk to the proper administration of the estate is required, and that hostility alone is insufficient.

Given the contradictory affidavit evidence and the absence of clear proof that the estate’s administration was endangered, the court declined to remove either trustee.

Directions were ordered for the sale of the estate’s business interests and for related claims to proceed to trial.

Estate trustees sought approval of estate accounts and determination of trustee compensation following the death of an intestate estate trustee before accounts were passed.

The respondent beneficiary objected to several aspects of the compensation calculation, including investment losses, treatment of real estate sale proceeds, payments made to the trustee, accounting fees, and the application of standard percentage-based compensation.

The court held that compensation should not be awarded on losses, that certain disbursements and professional fees should be excluded from compensation calculations, and that reduced percentages were appropriate for some transactions.

Applying the conventional percentage approach cross‑checked against the five-factor analysis for trustee compensation, the court fixed compensation at a reduced amount.

The estate trustee’s compensation was set at $21,761.41 CAD plus $445.81 USD, subject to further submissions on costs and distribution of the remaining estate funds.

Following a motion concerning non-compliance with undertakings and arrears of child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party had been largely successful in establishing substantial non‑compliance with undertakings and child support obligations, although not all requested relief was granted.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the parties’ conduct, the importance of the issues, the time spent, and the reasonableness of the claimed legal fees.

While the responding party’s conduct was found to be unreasonable, the evidence did not establish bad faith.

Costs were awarded in a reduced amount payable by instalments.

Following a motion in a family law proceeding involving child and spousal support issues, the court addressed the appropriate costs award under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant achieved partial success, obtaining guideline child support for two children, spousal support in the amount sought, and partial interim fees, but was unsuccessful on disclosure and certain other relief.

The court considered the moderate complexity of the motion, the parties’ conduct, the reasonableness of counsel rates, and the time spent on the matter.

The applicant’s offer to settle did not improve upon the court’s decision and was served too late to engage cost consequences.

Balancing the Rule 24 factors, the court awarded reduced costs to the applicant.

Following a family law trial involving issues of custody, access, and support, the court determined the appropriate costs award under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party had been successful on the issue of care and control of the children, while the responding party had been successful on spousal support.

The court considered the parties’ relative success, the reasonableness of their conduct, and the effect of settlement offers.

Finding the moving party more successful overall, the court ordered costs in the amount of $12,500 plus HST, subject to set-off against a retroactive support award.

The court also issued supplementary reasons correcting an omission in the earlier judgment and confirming the parenting arrangement of alternating weekly residence under joint custody.