Ranjan Das

The applicant sought to remove or pass over the respondent as the estate trustee of their late mother's estate.

The respondent, the deceased's spouse, had taken no steps to administer the estate in the four years since her death and failed to respond to inquiries.

The court found it clearly necessary to pass over the respondent to ensure the proper administration of the estate and the welfare of the beneficiaries.

The applicant, named as the alternate trustee in the will, was appointed as the sole estate trustee.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from an application by Peel Condominium Corporation No. 170 to enforce an arbitration award against Bonita Lynne Mittel.

The initial application was granted on February 8, 2024.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs of $17,992.76, arguing that condominium litigation warrants higher cost awards under Section 134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Respondent opposed, citing inability to pay and claiming she did not oppose the enforcement application.

The court found that the Respondent did oppose the application and caused delays, and that her financial circumstances did not justify deviating from the statutory policy of shifting costs to the unit owner.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the Applicant, emphasizing the unique nature of costs in condominium disputes.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendant Rosy Moses.

The underlying litigation involves a family dispute over the ownership and control of corporate entities, with claims based on proprietary estoppel.

The motion addressed the relevance of questions concerning Rosy Moses's testamentary intentions, the production of accountant and will drafting files, and transfers of assets to Rachel Moses.

A significant portion of the motion also dealt with the inadvertent disclosure of a privileged document.

The court ruled on the relevance of various questions, compelling some answers related to asset equalization and family dynamics, while upholding refusals for others, particularly those concerning inadvertently disclosed privileged documents.

The court found a mixed success rate for both parties and ordered no costs.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchasers for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendants failed to close the transaction after requesting multiple extensions and failing to secure financing.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding alleged misrepresentations and property valuation.

The plaintiff was awarded $381,971.72 in damages, representing the difference in resale price and carrying costs, plus $22,000 in costs.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for default judgment after the defendant purchaser failed to close a real estate transaction for a residential property.

The defendant's pleadings were previously struck and he was noted in default.

The court found the plaintiff proved the breach of contract and its damages, which included the difference between the original purchase price and the resale price, plus carrying costs and interest, less the deposit.

The court granted default judgment in the amount of $267,736.27 plus costs on a partial indemnity basis.

This is an appeal and cross-appeal arising from a trial judgment concerning oppression and conspiracy claims related to a condominium corporation.

The appellants (original defendants) challenged the trial judge's findings that claims against one defendant were not statute-barred, the award of punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.

The respondents (original plaintiffs) cross-appealed the prejudgment interest rate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's decisions on all contested issues, including the application of limitation periods, the appropriateness of punitive damages for egregious conduct, and the discretion in awarding substantial indemnity costs and prejudgment interest.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application to declare his late father's 2019 will invalid due to undue influence.

The application judge found the appellant lacked standing under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Estates Act, as an earlier 1996 will (under which he was not a beneficiary) would take effect if the 2019 will was set aside.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the application judge's reasoning regarding standing and the onus on the appellant to adduce evidence challenging the 1996 will's validity.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants, David, Jacqueline, and Jeremy Kaweesa, brought a motion before the Court of Appeal for Ontario to set aside an order by Paciocco J.A. The prior order had granted security for costs to the mortgagees (Sub-Prime Mortgage Corporation and Elle Mortgage Corporation) in a mortgage enforcement appeal and lifted a temporary stay on a writ of possession.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Kaweesas' motion, finding no error in Paciocco J.A.'s application of the test for security for costs under Rule 61.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court upheld the findings that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and that the appellants had insufficient assets.

The claim regarding the stay was deemed moot as it had expired.

The moving parties (mortgagees and their principal) brought motions in the Court of Appeal for Ontario seeking security for costs of an appeal, lifting a temporary stay of a writ of possession, further security for costs awarded below, and expediting the appeal.

The responding parties (mortgagors/appellants) had appealed a judgment enforcing minutes of settlement and granting a writ of possession, which had been temporarily stayed conditional on tax payments.

The court found the appeal grounds frivolous and vexatious, and the responding parties had insufficient assets.

The court granted security for costs and lifted the temporary stay, finding the responding parties breached the stay condition and that the writ of possession was not automatically stayed.

The motions for further security for costs below and expediting the appeal were dismissed.

This decision addresses the costs of a successful motion for judgment brought by the plaintiffs (Sub-Prime Mortgage Corporation and Elle Mortgage Corporation) to enforce minutes of settlement.

The court determined the liability, scale, and quantum of costs for both the plaintiffs and Terry Walman, a defendant to the counterclaim who also participated in the motion.

The plaintiffs were awarded substantial indemnity costs as per their mortgage terms, while Mr. Walman was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The defendants were ordered to pay costs to both the plaintiffs and Mr. Walman.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,050.08.

The applicant sought to challenge his deceased father's 2019 Will, which left the entire estate to the applicant's mother.

The respondents moved to dismiss the application for lack of standing, relying on a 1996 Will that also left the entire estate to the mother.

The court found that the applicant failed to present sufficient evidence to challenge the validity of the 1996 Will.

Consequently, even if the 2019 Will were invalid, the applicant would have no financial interest in the estate under the 1996 Will.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that his separate civil claim for proprietary estoppel gave him independent standing under s. 23 of the Estates Act.

The motion was granted and the application dismissed.

The moving party, Hazelton Homes Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Faieta J. dated May 28, 2020 and June 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

During a case conference in a joint venture dispute, the parties agreed that the plaintiff's counsel was in a conflict of interest and should be removed as solicitor of record for a jointly-owned corporation in a related solicitor's negligence action.

The court granted the order removing counsel and directed that the corporation would have 30 days to retain new counsel or seek leave to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The court deferred the defendants' request for immediate production of the complete solicitor's file until new counsel is retained.

The court held a case management conference in a land dispute action involving a failed real estate transaction and a discharged certificate of pending litigation.

The court issued procedural directions regarding the amendment of pleadings, demands for particulars, and discussions on security for costs, while setting dates for examinations for discovery and the next case management conference.

Following a trial judgment in favour of the plaintiff, the parties made written submissions on the quantification of prejudgment interest and costs.

The court fixed prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 1.3 percent.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the defendants engaged in egregious, scandalous, and outrageous conduct throughout the litigation, including misleading the court and breaching a court order.

The plaintiff's costs were fixed at $568,292.05.

The Plaintiff sought summary judgment for a claim arising from an aborted home sale.

The Defendant failed to comply with a court-ordered timetable for motion materials, submitting key documents, including an appraisal report and an admission of liability, the night before the scheduled hearing.

This non-compliance necessitated an adjournment.

The Plaintiff requested strict terms, including security for the claim and costs, citing concerns about asset disposition.

The court granted the adjournment but declined to order security for the claim or costs, instead imposing an injunction preventing the Defendant from disposing of or encumbering assets or incurring new debt, except for ordinary living expenses.

The Defendant was also ordered to pay $4,500 in costs for the adjournment and wasted preparation.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a motion brought by Donald Bodkin in a mortgage enforcement action.

First National Financial Corporation and the Defendants (John Doe 1 and John Doe 2) sought substantial indemnity costs from Mr. Bodkin.

Mr. Bodkin argued for no costs, citing the novelty of the case, or for partial indemnity.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity, finding Mr. Bodkin's conduct did not warrant such a sanction, and also rejected the argument that the case was novel.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to First National Financial Corporation in the amount of $9,000 and to the Defendants in the amount of $8,500, payable by Mr. Bodkin within 30 days.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to produce certain documents for inspection and to provide particulars of its statement of claim regarding an equipment lease for a helicopter.

The Master partially granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to produce written demands for payment if they exist, and to provide particulars of the date and price of the helicopter's sale to allow the defendant to plead a defence of set-off.

The balance of the requests were dismissed as they sought non-specific documents or evidence rather than material facts necessary for pleading.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to preserve $2 million seized by the RCMP in related criminal proceedings, which had previously been ordered paid into court in the civil proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's counterclaim under Rule 21.

The RCMP brought a motion to quash a summons directed at an RCMP officer to provide evidence for a pending contempt motion.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, dismissed the motion to strike the counterclaim, and dismissed the RCMP's motion to quash the summons, providing directions for obtaining the necessary documents.