Raongdao Phalavong

Following the granting of summary judgment enforcing minutes of settlement and dismissal of a motion to amend pleadings, the successful party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $317,000, alternatively partial indemnity costs of approximately $205,000.

The opposing parties argued that substantial indemnity costs were inappropriate and that the fees claimed were excessive.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not justified but awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Significant reductions were applied to the bill of costs due to duplication of effort among multiple counsel, excessive hours, and unreasonable expectations for certain attendances.

The court ultimately assessed partial indemnity costs at $145,258.54 plus HST and disbursements.

Following dismissal of an application seeking declaratory relief regarding control and management of church congregation property and governance, the court determined costs.

The unsuccessful applicants argued no costs should be awarded due to alleged public importance, novelty, and the charitable nature of the dispute within a religious organization.

The court rejected these arguments and held that ordinary costs principles apply, emphasizing success as the primary factor under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the respondents had made a Rule 49 offer to settle, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs because the declaratory nature of the relief made comparison with the offer impracticable.

Costs were therefore awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

A homebuilder sought summary judgment enforcing minutes of settlement resolving a dispute over construction deficiencies and a $200,000 holdback on a luxury home contract.

The homeowners argued the settlement was unenforceable due to absence of executed releases, alleged duress, nondisclosure of a thermal imaging report identifying further deficiencies, and incomplete performance of settlement obligations.

The court held that settlement agreements are contracts requiring mutual intention and agreement on essential terms, and found the signed minutes constituted a complete and binding agreement.

The failure to exchange releases did not amount to repudiation because the obligation was mutual and both parties continued acting in accordance with the settlement.

Allegations of duress and nondisclosure were rejected on the evidence.

Summary judgment enforcing the settlement was granted.

Members of a local congregation of the Serbian Orthodox Church sought declarations that elected trustees retained authority over congregational property and that diocesan authorities acted unlawfully by removing the elected executive board and appointing a temporary trusteeship.

The applicants argued that the actions violated the Religious Organizations’ Lands Act and improperly interfered with property held in trust.

The court held that the church’s hierarchical governance structure permitted the diocese to appoint a temporary trusteeship under its internal statute.

The court found no breach of provincial legislation and concluded that the dispute primarily concerned internal church governance and canon law.

Judicial intervention was therefore unwarranted and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought declaratory relief that a writ of execution registered against him personally did not attach to lands he held in trust for a corporation.

The respondent creditor argued the trust arrangement raised triable issues and alleged the transaction was potentially a fraudulent conveyance.

The court held that the unregistered declaration of trust, created years before the writ of execution, established that the lands were held solely in trust and not beneficially by the debtor.

As an execution creditor can claim no greater interest than the debtor held, the writ could not attach to trust property or its sale proceeds.

Judgment was granted declaring the writ did not affect the lands and ordering release of funds held in trust.