Richard E. Anka

Following dismissal of a motion for production of documents, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court considered allegations made by the moving party against opposing counsel and a physician defendant, including claims of document alteration and misleading the court.

The court found the allegations unsupported and characterized them as serious and scurrilous.

Applying the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that such unfounded allegations justified substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were awarded against the plaintiff in favour of the physician defendant on a substantial indemnity basis and modest costs to another defendant.

In an action concerning an alleged conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of her share of her late father's estate, the plaintiff moved for further production of pre-2004 medical records from the defendant doctor and the federal government regarding her father's shock therapy in 1969 or 1970.

The defendant Birch also moved to compel the plaintiff to answer a refusal to obtain records from Bell Canada regarding an alleged wiretap.

The court dismissed all motions, finding the plaintiff's production requests lacked relevance and violated the principle of proportionality, and that Birch's motion for Bell Canada records was also disproportionate given the minimal relevance and alternative remedies available.

The plaintiff sued his nephew and sister for an unpaid loan of $142,307.21, alleging the nephew borrowed the money and the sister guaranteed it as executrix of their mother's estate.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions, arguing the claim was barred by a mutual release executed to settle a decade of prior estate litigation.

The court granted the sister's motion, finding the broad release extinguished the claim against her.

However, the court dismissed the nephew's motion, concluding there was a genuine issue for trial because he was not a party to the release and the parties did not intend to extinguish his personal debt.

The defendant brought a motion seeking relief from forfeiture and to set aside a foreclosure order on the basis that he had not received notice of the foreclosure proceedings and that the mortgaged property was sold below market value.

The court found that the statement of claim had been properly served under Rule 16.03(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and accepted the process server’s affidavit of service as credible.

The court also held that the purchasers of the property were bona fide purchasers for value and that expert appraisal evidence supported the sale price.

No exceptional circumstances or defects in the foreclosure or sale process were established to justify equitable intervention.

The motion for relief from forfeiture was therefore dismissed.