Rahul Shastri

The court reconsidered its costs decision following a damages re-hearing, where both the plaintiff and defendants sought costs.

The plaintiff, Prolink Broker Network Inc., claimed partial indemnity costs, while the defendants, Rakesh (Rick) Jaitley, My Insurance Broker Corp., and My Insurance Broker Canada Corp., argued for no costs to the plaintiff and sought their own costs based on an offer to settle.

The court applied a flexible approach to reconsider its previous endorsement due to a factual error.

Ultimately, the court found that both parties had mixed success and neither achieved their desired outcome in the overall litigation.

Despite the plaintiff's limited success on liability and the defendants' expert evidence being largely accepted on damages, the court declined to award costs to either party, concluding that each should bear its own costs.

The plaintiffs in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion to compel answers to a refused question from the defendant's examination for discovery.

The plaintiffs sought underlying financial source documents to test the defendant's unaudited financial statements, which were relevant to their claims for bonus shares and share valuation.

The Master granted the motion, finding the documents relevant to the pleadings and not disproportionate given the defendant's significant gross revenue, while excluding projections and forecasts for periods after the valuation date.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses the management of two intertwined proceedings: a family law application (divorce, spousal support, equalization, trust claims) and a guardianship proceeding.

The court prioritized the family law application, scheduling a combined settlement and trial management conference.

It also addressed disclosure issues, compliance with previous orders (costs, property listing), and clarified the procedural nature of prior decisions.

The court declined to set a hearing date for the guardianship application at this time.

This case is a re-hearing on damages following a Divisional Court decision that remitted the matter back to the trial judge for a proper valuation of the plaintiff's 25% share interest in the defendant company, My Insurance Brokerage (MIB), after a breach of contract.

The court assessed conflicting expert evidence on share valuation, utilizing both income/cash flow and market multiple methods.

The plaintiff's expert's opinion was approached with caution due to an undisclosed professional relationship and unrealistic assumptions regarding minority discount and the impact of the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

While generally preferring the defendant's expert's methodology, the court found an error in valuing MIB as a start-up and ordered an upward adjustment to the cash flow multiple.

The final fair market value of the shares was to be determined as the midpoint between the recalculated income/cash flow valuation and the market method valuation.

This endorsement addresses two motions and sets directions for a future case conference in two related proceedings: a family law application (FS-15-406705) and a guardianship proceeding (FS-17-21568).

The court reserved decision on the motions and outlined issues for the upcoming case conference, including the impact of the "deemed undertaking" rule on evidence and productions, and status reports on disclosure and mediation.

Counsel were directed to collaborate on a proposed order regarding the deemed undertaking rule.

The applicant, Joanne Chuvalo, brought a motion for directions in a guardianship application concerning George Chuvalo.

She sought extensive disclosure of medical, financial, and legal records, and orders to revoke powers of attorney for property and personal care held by George's children, Mitchell and Vanessa Chuvalo.

The court narrowed the scope of disclosure, limiting medical records to periods surrounding the creation of the powers of attorney and dismissing most requests for financial and legal records as premature or disproportionate.

The primary issues were identified as the validity and potential revocation of the 2014 and 2016 powers of attorney.

Costs were reserved to the judge hearing the main guardianship application.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to set aside an arbitration award that dismissed its claim against the respondent unit owners for allegedly breaching a Section 98 Agreement regarding renovations.

The applicant argued the award was obtained by fraud based on new evidence from former board members.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove fraud, did not act with due diligence, and the new evidence would not have changed the outcome.

The court also denied leave to appeal, concluding the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement was a question of mixed fact and law, and any legal errors would not significantly affect the parties' rights.

The applicant, George Chuvalo, brought a family law proceeding.

The respondent wife argued that the proceedings should be stayed under s. 10(2) of the Divorce Act to allow for reconciliation.

The court held a trial on the threshold issue of whether the applicant had the capacity to decide to reconcile or divorce.

Relying on expert medical evidence, the court found that the applicant lacked the capacity to decide whether to reconcile, as he could not appreciate the consequences of such a decision.

The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as his litigation guardian.

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing his motion to set aside a default judgment dated July 4, 2016.

The appellant had been served with a statement of claim alleging he had provided an oral personal guarantee for $50,000 on a loan agreement.

The appellant failed to defend the action and was noted in default, resulting in a default judgment being entered.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's motion to set aside the default judgment, finding that the appellant had acknowledged his debt through communications with the respondent and had deliberately delayed responding to the claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no overriding or palpable error or error of law in the exercise of discretion.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment of $50,000 and vacate a notice of garnishment.

The defendant had acknowledged the debt and offered a repayment plan but failed to defend the action.

He ignored the default judgment for over six months until garnishment was served on his corporation.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside default judgments and found that the defendant deliberately delayed and failed to provide a plausible explanation.

The motion was dismissed, and costs of $5,500 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The moving party, Men's Fire, sought to be added as a party and to vary an interlocutory injunction that prevented interference with the plaintiff's archaeological assessments on its property.

The court added Men's Fire as a party on consent but dismissed the motion to vary the injunction.

The court found no evidence of an active land claim against the property, no failure by the plaintiff to comply with legislation, and no duty on the private landowner or the municipality to consult with the moving party under the circumstances.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for breach of contract regarding the value of shares in a startup insurance brokerage.

The trial judge had determined the fair market value of the shares based on net earnings, relying on an unsworn affidavit submitted after trial, rather than reopening the trial for proper valuation evidence.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge erred by failing to reopen the trial to adduce objective evidence of fair market value, as the contractual provision relied upon did not apply to an early termination.

The appeal was granted and the quantification of damages was remitted to the trial judge.

Following the dismissal of an action on summary judgment concerning alleged nondisclosure in a land sale, the successful defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs had alleged that the vendor Crown breached duties of good faith and honesty by failing to disclose Indigenous land-related claims affecting the property.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under Rule 57.01 and the Courts of Justice Act and rejected the argument that the Crown’s costs should be discounted because government counsel are salaried.

The court held the defendants’ claimed fees and disbursements were reasonable given the complexity of responding to allegations of bad faith and the extensive factual investigation required.

Costs of $383,745.81 on a partial indemnity basis were awarded to the defendants.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a real estate transaction.

The plaintiffs, real estate developers, purchased surplus government land and later faced blockades by aboriginal protesters.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached a duty of good faith and failed to disclose latent defects by not informing them of prior monetary claims and a lawsuit by the Six Nations regarding the land.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding no duty to disclose the claims under the contract, no evidence of dishonesty to trigger a breach of good faith, and that the claims did not constitute a latent defect as they did not render the land uninhabitable or dangerous.

In a trial arising from a property dispute between former romantic partners and a family member, the court rejected the plaintiff's claim that the defendants held the property in trust under a valid trust agreement.

The court also rejected the defendants' position that the property had been given as an unconditional and irrevocable gift.

Applying credibility findings and the Statute of Frauds, the court concluded title should nonetheless be transferred to the plaintiff because the defendants failed to prove a gift, while ordering the plaintiff to reimburse the defendants for renovation-related expenses established on the evidence.

The plaintiff was required to pay $31,840 within the time fixed by the court.

The respondents built an addition to their home that encroached on a private right-of-way shared with the appellants.

The right-of-way was granted for vehicular ingress and egress.

The application judge found that the encroachment did not substantially interfere with the appellants' ability to use the laneway for its granted purpose and dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that an encroachment on a private right-of-way, even by a permanent structure, is only actionable if it substantially interferes with the dominant owner's reasonable use of the right-of-way.

The defendants moved to vacate a prior judgment and a notice of garnishment, arguing that the underlying debt had been fully satisfied pursuant to a subsequent settlement agreement.

The plaintiffs opposed and cross-moved to add the garnishees as defendants, alleging fraudulent preference.

The court found that the parties had entered into a valid settlement agreement and that the defendants had paid the settlement amount in full.

Consequently, the court vacated the judgments and the notice of garnishment, and dismissed the plaintiffs' cross-motion.

Following dismissal of a motion to continue an ex parte interim injunction, the successful defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff argued that costs should be denied or reduced due to alleged reprehensible pre‑litigation conduct by the defendant and that the claimed amount was excessive.

The court held that the limited and conflicting evidence regarding pre‑litigation conduct did not justify departing from the general rule that a successful party is entitled to costs.

Partial indemnity costs were appropriate because the plaintiff’s conduct in seeking the injunction was not sufficiently reprehensible to warrant substantial indemnity.

Costs were fixed at $20,397.92 and ordered payable within 60 days.

Following a dispute over costs after the underlying proceeding, the applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the respondents argued for a significantly reduced amount and objected to certain disbursements.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted because there was no reprehensible conduct in the litigation.

On a partial indemnity basis, the court reviewed the hours claimed by counsel and rejected arguments that the applicants’ legal team engaged in excessive duplication, although some preparation time was considered excessive.

The court also allowed disbursements for professional witnesses, finding that accountants called as fact witnesses were entitled to compensation for their time in preparing affidavits, attending cross‑examinations, and testifying.

Total costs payable were fixed at $58,034 inclusive of HST.

The applicants, owners of adjacent properties, sought a declaration that the respondents unlawfully obstructed a shared right-of-way by constructing an addition to their home.

The right-of-way was granted for the purpose of vehicular ingress and egress to the applicants' garages.

The court found that while the addition permanently occupied a portion of the right-of-way, it did not substantially interfere with the applicants' ability to access their garages by vehicle.

The application was dismissed, as the encroachment did not constitute an actionable interference with the specific limited purpose of the right-of-way.