Raymond Gary Colautti

Following the dismissal of the Estate Trustee's motion to strike a Notice of Objection to Accounts, and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal, the responding beneficiary sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the Estate Trustee acted unreasonably and in his own self-interest, justifying an elevated costs award.

The court ordered the Estate Trustee to personally pay the responding party's costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $47,963.67.

The appellant, owner of a commercial property in Windsor, Ontario, sought leave to amend its statement of claim in a second action to add a claim for breach of statutory duty under the Environmental Protection Act.

The motion judge refused the amendment on the grounds that it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the claim was clearly statute-barred and that the proposed amendment would constitute an entirely new cause of action against different parties.

The court noted that the appellant had the option to amend its statement of claim in the first action instead.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were fixed at $30,000 inclusive.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiffs to the Lowe's defendants at $114,091.83 and to the Windsor Police Service (WPS) defendants at $91,841.47, on a joint and several basis.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments of impecuniosity and public interest litigation, finding they failed to provide robust financial disclosure and that their claims were primarily private in nature despite involving Charter rights.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding and that the costs sought were reasonable given the complexity and duration of the action, and the WPS defendants' offer to settle.

The plaintiffs sought damages for nuisance and statutory liability under the Municipal Act, 2001, alleging property damage from increased truck traffic.

Both parties brought competing summary judgment motions.

The court found the plaintiffs' claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as it was discovered in February 2009, making the January 2018 action outside the two-year limitation period.

The court rejected the application of the ten-year Real Property Limitation Act and the "rolling" cause of action.

Additionally, the court held that the statutory duty of care under s. 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001, was owed to the travelling public, not adjoining landowners.

Consequently, the defendant municipality's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiffs' motion was dismissed.

An appeal from a trial judgment upholding the validity of a codicil executed by an 87-year-old mother that changed her will to leave the residue of her estate to one son instead of dividing it equally between two sons.

The appellant son challenged the codicil on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and coercion.

The trial judge found the codicil valid after a 10-day trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings regarding testamentary capacity, knowledge of assets, and the absence of undue influence or coercion.

Appellants appealed the motion judge's refusal to enforce a settlement agreement reached at a pre-trial conference in a motor vehicle accident action.

The motion judge found that counsel's description of witnesses as "independent" amounted to civil fraud because the witnesses' son lived across the street from the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that counsel's statement was an opinion with a reasonable basis made in good faith, not a false statement of fact.

The court emphasized that findings of civil fraud against counsel could have devastating reputational consequences and could chill resolute advocacy.

The court also found that the defendant failed to exercise due diligence in investigating the witnesses' connection to the plaintiffs.

On summary judgment motions by police defendants and retail defendants arising from arrests connected to a fraudulent credit-card retail pickup scheme, the court dismissed the action against all moving parties.

The court held that claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and related Charter breaches were discovered on arrest and were statute-barred, and further held that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for a warrantless arrest.

The negligent investigation claims against police failed because the record did not show a breach of the standard of care and no expert evidence was adduced where such evidence was required.

The negligent investigation claims against the retail defendants also failed because no duty of care was recognized on the facts under the Anns/Cooper framework, and in any event no breach of any applicable standard was established.

Derivative family claims and related claims for nervous shock were also dismissed.

An estate trustee sought to strike out a beneficiary's notice of objection to accounts on the grounds that the objections were barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that a notice of objection to accounts filed in response to an estate trustee's application to pass accounts does not commence a proceeding within the meaning of the Limitations Act and therefore is not subject to the basic two-year limitation period.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the estate trustee to pay costs personally, finding his motion to strike was unreasonable and designed to delay the passing of accounts hearing.

Strathan Corporation sought leave to amend its statement of claim in a second action (Second Strathan Action) to include a new claim for breach of statutory duty causing environmental contamination under the Environmental Protection Act.

The defendants opposed, arguing the proposed amendments were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, untenable at law, and an abuse of process given a prior action (First Strathan Action) already addressing environmental contamination.

The court dismissed Strathan's motion, finding the new claim was a distinct cause of action, statute-barred by the two-year limitation period (as Strathan knew of the environmental claim since 2009 when it commenced the First Strathan Action), and constituted an abuse of process by attempting to graft a duplicative claim onto a separate action.

The court also rejected the argument that the Real Property Limitations Act applied.

The plaintiff purchased a landlocked commercial property with the intention of developing it.

The property abutted a Home Depot, which had a site plan control agreement with the City requiring it to negotiate a reciprocal access agreement with the abutting property owner if required.

The plaintiff sued the City and Home Depot, alleging they frustrated its development by delaying or denying access, claiming negligence, nuisance, breach of contract, and proprietary estoppel.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the action, finding that many of the plaintiff's claims were not properly pleaded, the City owed no duty of care to preserve access, no negligent misrepresentations were made, and Home Depot acted in good faith in negotiating the access agreement, which was inherently complex and conditional.

Appellants appealed the dismissal of their action alleging negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and Charter damages arising from the respondents' investigation of a fire at a rental house.

The fire was intentionally set by a resident, but spread rapidly due to Fire Code violations.

The appellants were charged with arson by negligence under s. 436 of the Criminal Code.

The charge against one appellant was withdrawn; the other was discharged at preliminary inquiry.

The trial judge dismissed all claims, finding the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay charges and acted in good faith without malice.

The appellants appealed, arguing the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds because they lacked the requisite mens rea.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that under the modified objective test for negligence-based offences, the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the marked departure from the standard of care inferred from Fire Code violations.

This ruling addresses a costs application following the dismissal of an injunction application brought by the applicants against the respondent City.

The applicants had sought to prevent the destruction of municipal election records, alleging wrongdoing in the 2014 municipal election.

The injunction was initially granted on an interim basis, pending a pre-enquete hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice, which ultimately found no basis for charges.

The Superior Court then dismissed the injunction application.

The City sought substantial indemnity costs, while the applicants argued against liability for costs, claiming public interest litigant status.

The court found the applicants liable for costs due to their lack of success, the serious and unfounded nature of their allegations, and their vexatious conduct during litigation.

The court rejected the public interest litigant claim, particularly for one applicant who had sought a personal financial settlement to abandon the allegations.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the City, considering the in camera nature of the pre-enquete and the right of citizens to lay private informations.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion to enforce a settlement in a motor vehicle accident claim, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The defendant sought full indemnity costs of $122,826.71, arguing the plaintiffs' counsel made misleading statements during a pretrial that led to the repudiated settlement.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $100,000 to the defendant.

The court declined to order costs personally against the plaintiffs' counsel under Rule 57.07(1), finding that while counsel's representations led to the settlement, the costs of the motion were caused by the plaintiffs' tactical decision to seek enforcement rather than proceed to trial.

The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant debtor and subsequently brought an action alleging the debtor fraudulently conveyed properties to the other defendants.

The debtor later declared bankruptcy and was discharged.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages against the transferees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to follow the correct procedure under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, as the claim belonged to the bankruptcy estate and the plaintiff should have pursued remedies in bankruptcy court rather than seeking damages in civil court.

The plaintiff mortgagors failed to maintain property insurance as required by their mortgage.

The defendant mortgagees obtained their own insurance policy to protect their interest, with the plaintiffs reimbursing the premiums.

After a fire destroyed the property, the insurer paid the mortgagees the policy limits and claimed a subrogated right to enforce the mortgage against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the insurer had no subrogated rights and an order discharging the mortgage to the extent of the insurance payout.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the insurance policy was obtained solely for the benefit of the mortgagees and explicitly provided for subrogation rights against the mortgagors.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for malicious prosecution and other torts against multiple public servants and entities, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court considered the Rule 57.01 factors, noting the complexity of the case, the plaintiffs' unfounded allegations of malice and conspiracy, and the defendants' reasonable offers to settle.

The court fixed costs at $260,000 for the municipal defendants and $231,100 for the provincial defendants, representing an amount between partial and substantial indemnity.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation related to a failed real estate development project.

The plaintiff sought rescission of the contract and recovery of his $500,000 investment.

The defendants argued that the claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and raised genuine issues regarding the existence of a fiduciary duty, the cause of the project's failure, and the calculation of damages.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that there were multiple genuine issues requiring a trial, including the nature of the relationship between the parties, the state of the defendants' knowledge, and the limitation period.

The plaintiffs owned a property that was intentionally set on fire by a tenant, resulting in severe injuries to occupants.

The police and fire marshal investigated and concluded the property was an illegal rooming house with multiple Fire Code violations that contributed to the spread of the fire.

The plaintiffs were charged with arson by negligence under s. 436 of the Criminal Code, but were discharged at the preliminary inquiry.

They subsequently sued the investigating police officer, fire marshal investigators, and their municipal employers for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligent investigation, and Charter breaches.

The Superior Court dismissed the action in its entirety, finding no evidence of malice or bad faith, and concluding that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges based on the evidence gathered.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the Belleville Police respondents for false arrest and false imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the appellants for possession of stolen property, and that the police were not required to accept the appellants' innocent explanation before laying charges.

The Court also agreed that the intentional tort claims were statute-barred as the limitation period commenced on the date of arrest, and that summary judgment was appropriate as the liability of the Belleville respondents was severable from the other defendants.

The appeal and motion for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was an abuse of process, and was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs had previously commenced an identical action regarding a terminated bingo hall lease on First Nation reserve lands, which was dismissed for delay.

The court agreed with the defendants, finding the second action was an abuse of process attempting to re-litigate the dismissed claims.

The court also held the lease was void ab initio under the Indian Act and the claims were subject to the two-year limitation period.

The motion to strike was granted without leave to amend.