Peter M. Callahan

This decision resolves the final outstanding issue of costs in a long-running civil action involving the Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar and the Royal Bank of Canada, among other parties.

The court reviews the history of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the principles governing costs, ultimately awarding $25,000 in costs to RBC for steps taken after December 31, 2024.

The court declines to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the conduct of the applicant was problematic, it did not rise to the level required for such an award after the relevant date.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of law enforcement agencies found liable for the negligent arrest and detention of two senior citizens at the Canada/U.S. border, based on inaccurate information in the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) system.

The court held that, in the circumstances, the officers were required to verify the CPIC information before arresting the respondents.

The decision clarifies that the standard of care for police officers incorporates criminal law standards and that, depending on the context, officers may be required to verify database information before acting.

The court also rejected arguments that the law had changed since the incident or that the trial judge applied an inappropriately high standard.

This decision resolves a family law dispute between Parmjot K. Kounsil and Harpreet Singh Kounsil, addressing issues including the date of separation, property in Alberta, primary residence and decision-making for the child K., parental communication, transportation, alcohol use, relocation, travel, income imputation, child and spousal support, health and life insurance, supervision costs, and costs of the proceeding.

The court finds the date of separation to be March 2018, orders sole decision-making to the mother, imputes minimum wage income to the father for certain years, and makes detailed orders on child support, health coverage, and other matters.

This decision fixes costs following a motion in long-running litigation involving the Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar and the Royal Bank of Canada.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to RBC and its counsel, rejecting the request for substantial indemnity and the applicant’s claim for costs.

The reasons review the history of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ultimately awarding $16,500 in costs to be paid by Mr. Mylabathula to RBC.

The court addressed two motions: one to remove counsel for the Estate and Mr. Mylabathula due to a conflict of interest and the likelihood of becoming a witness, and another to strike the counterclaim brought by the Estate and Mr. Mylabathula against RBC and its counsel, Mr. Bowden.

The court ordered the removal of counsel, Mr. Callahan, finding he would inevitably be a witness regarding Mr. Mylabathula's knowledge of costs orders.

The counterclaim by the Estate was struck without leave to amend due to limitations and the inability of an estate to pursue defamation claims.

Mr. Mylabathula's counterclaim against Mr. Bowden was struck without leave due to absolute privilege and abuse of process.

Mr. Mylabathula's counterclaim against RBC was struck with limited leave to amend, requiring proper pleading of tort elements and a connection for discrimination claims.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to strike the statement of defence or compel a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant, the Town of Oakville, in a construction dispute.

The motion to strike was not pursued.

The court granted the motion for a further affidavit of documents in part, finding the Town's initial affidavit deficient and ordering a supplementary affidavit with specific relevant documents, including those related to privilege claims.

However, many of the plaintiffs' broad production requests were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of relevance or existence, with the court emphasizing that such inquiries are better suited for examination for discovery.

The court also rejected the Town's threshold objections regarding unpaid costs and failure to agree on a discovery plan, noting that the latter default was shared by both parties.

The respondents, Barnes, Sammon LLP and Alana Guy, brought a motion to set aside an assessment officer's report that ordered them to jointly pay the applicant, Gaganpreet Blaggan, $22,441.15.

The respondents argued they were denied procedural fairness due to inadequate notice of the pre-assessment and assessment hearings.

The court found that the applicant's counsel failed to ensure proper notice to all parties and did not inform the assessment officer of Ms. Guy's unavailability or adjournment request.

Consequently, the court set aside the assessment report and remitted the matter for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the importance of due notice and counsel's duty of cooperation.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a summary judgment motion, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court awarded the AG Defendants costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court awarded the RBC Defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiff's reprehensible conduct, including lengthy delays, unnecessary motions, and pursuing claims that were not maintainable after the original plaintiff's death.

The court reduced the requested amounts due to the lack of detailed dockets in the Bills of Costs.

The defendants, including Royal Bank of Canada, brought a motion to strike several claims (negligence, negligent investigation, defamation, breach of Charter rights, breach of statutory duty, conspiracy to breach statutory duty, interference with economic relations) and a motion for summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim.

The court dismissed all claims except malicious prosecution due to the expiration of the limitation period and failure to disclose a cause of action.

The defamation claim was also dismissed because it cannot be maintained by an estate trustee.

The court granted summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim, finding that the defendants had reasonable and probable cause to report the matter to the police and did not act with malice.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy city sidewalk, sustaining a severe proximal humerus fracture that required surgery and resulted in permanent limitations in her right shoulder.

The defendant municipality admitted liability, leaving only damages to be assessed.

The court awarded $125,000 in general damages, $64,723 for future care costs, and $2,724.26 for out-of-pocket expenses, plus a subrogated OHIP claim.

Claims for past and future income loss were dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish a real and substantial risk of pecuniary loss.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim on two grounds: failure to pay three separate cost awards and an alleged fraudulent conveyance by the plaintiff's executor.

The court found that the outstanding cost awards had been paid, and the issue of fraudulent conveyance could not be determined on a motion to strike as it required a trial.

The court also noted that the failure to pass accounts was subject to an appeal and thus could not be relied upon.

Consequently, the motion to strike was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a series of motions where the defendants (Royal Bank of Canada and others) and a non-party law firm (LD Law) were largely successful against the plaintiff.

The motions concerned a recusal application, a privilege claim regarding a property transfer from the deceased's estate, and a motion to compel the estate trustee to pass accounts.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants and full indemnity costs to LD Law, finding the plaintiff's positions meritless and contributing to litigation delay.

The plaintiff's claim of impecuniosity was rejected due to insufficient evidence and the principle that impecuniosity should not allow parties to disregard court rules with impunity.

The Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar, through its trustee, brought a motion for the judge to recuse himself from hearing a privilege motion and a motion to pass accounts.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought disclosure of the Estate Trustee's real estate lawyer's file and an order for the Estate to pass its accounts.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

It granted RBC's motion, ruling that the Estate Trustee had implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege over the real estate file by relying on legal advice to explain his conduct regarding the property transfer.

The court also found that RBC, as a judgment creditor, had standing under the Estates Act to compel the passing of the Estate's accounts, and ordered the accounts to be passed.

The applicant sisters brought an estate application against their brother, the respondent, alleging he misappropriated their late mother's funds while acting as her Power of Attorney for Property.

The mother suffered from dementia, and the respondent had moved into her home, taking control of her finances and co-mingling her money with his own.

The court found the respondent breached his fiduciary duties by failing to account for the funds and using them for his own family's benefit.

The court ordered the respondent removed as Estate Trustee, dismissed his claim for personal care compensation, and ordered significant deductions from his share of the estate to repay the misappropriated funds, occupation rent, and unaccounted chattels.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's litigation guardian, arguing he was in a conflict of interest as an unsatisfied judgment creditor of the plaintiff.

The court found that the litigation guardian lacked the required indifference to the outcome of the litigation due to his status as a judgment creditor.

The motion was granted, the litigation guardian was removed, and the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed in his place.

The appellant, David Joseph Lesko, appealed three aspects of a divorce order: an equalization payment to the respondent, Kelly Sue Lesko, based on her 50% interest in a pre-marriage property due to unjust enrichment; the determination of his income for support purposes; and the disallowance of his claim for credit against retroactive support for post-separation expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, upholding the trial judge's findings regarding unjust enrichment, income calculation, and the discretion to deny the appellant's late-claimed expenses.

The applicant, through her litigation guardians, sought a declaration that her late husband breached his fiduciary duty while acting as her power of attorney for property.

The husband had severed the joint tenancy on their home, sold it, and transferred $500,000 of the proceeds into an account for his sole benefit, leaving nothing for the applicant in his will.

The court found that the husband breached his fiduciary duty by using the funds for his own benefit without the incapable applicant's consent.

The court ordered the husband's estate to pay $253,431.95 in restitution and interest to the applicant's estate.

The plaintiff sought declarations of interest and sale of four properties, alleging a "Property Venture" agreement.

The defendants denied this, asserting a "Commission Agreement" where property advances were compensation for business referrals.

The court found a 20% commission agreement existed, not the "Property Venture." It dismissed the plaintiff's claims for interest and rectification of title on two properties (Aloma and 2580 Property) and denied the sale of the Olive Property (due to corporate ownership not being a party).

It ordered the sale of the 2824 Property, where the plaintiff already held 50% title.

The defendant's counterclaim for damages based on a later "May 2017 Note" was also dismissed due to lack of evidence of referred work and uncertainty of terms.

The applicant brought a motion to transfer the respondent's motion to change spousal support from Hamilton to Milton, where a related proceeding between the parties was already ongoing.

The respondent had previously commenced and withdrawn a similar motion in Milton, incurring significant unpaid costs, before starting fresh in Hamilton.

The court granted the transfer, finding it substantially more convenient and necessary to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, inconsistent findings, and the waste of judicial resources, particularly given the respondent's history of litigation misconduct.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding the sale of a property, "Robin Hill Farm." The applicant argued that no binding agreement was reached and that his former counsel lacked authority to settle on his behalf.

The court found that the parties had agreed to all essential terms of the settlement through counsel's correspondence and that the applicant's former solicitor had ostensible authority to bind him.

The motion was granted, enforcing the settlement agreement.