Richard Keith Watson

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's action, alleging it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and that the plaintiff's counsel was in an incurable conflict of interest.

The court found the action to be an abuse of process due to significant overlap with other proceedings and the plaintiff's counsel's prior representation of one of the defendants as estate trustee, which provided access to privileged information.

The court concluded that this conflict created incurable prejudice.

The action was permanently stayed, and the plaintiff's counsel was removed from the record and prohibited from acting in any proceeding related to the estate where the defendant is a party.

Costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The applicant, a lawyer, brought an application challenging the vires of the Law Society Tribunal’s costs rules, which the respondent Law Society moved to strike.

The scheduled hearing was adjourned because both parties failed to file necessary materials in advance, leading to procedural disputes and preventing the judge from fully preparing.

This lack of preparation also delayed the discovery of a potential judicial conflict of interest, necessitating the adjournment.

The court emphasized the importance of counsel ensuring all required materials are filed properly to avoid increasing court backlogs.

The moving parties, a former lawyer and his professional corporation, sought an urgent order to pay the net proceeds of a condominium sale into court, pending their motion to extend time for an appeal from an underlying judgment.

The judgment had declared a trust invalid and ordered the discharge of a mortgage and return of assets to an estate, which the moving parties had failed to comply with, leading to a contempt finding.

The moving parties argued the payment was necessary to protect a beneficiary's interests and alleged estate mismanagement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the allegations of mismanagement incredible and the payment into court unnecessary.

The court noted the moving parties' history of obstruction, non-compliance with court orders, and unlikelihood of the appeal proceeding due to unpaid costs.

The applicant, Estate Trustee of Aghdas Javid's Estate, brought a motion for civil contempt against the respondents, Richard Keith Watson and his professional corporation, for non-compliance with a prior judgment.

The prior judgment had invalidated a trust created by Mr. Watson, ordered the discharge of a mortgage, conveyance of a condominium, remittance of trust funds, and compliance with disclosure undertakings.

The court found the respondents in contempt for failing to provide required documents and answer undertakings, but not for the mortgage discharge or conveyance, or remitting trust funds (pending updated statements).

A penalty hearing is to follow.

This costs endorsement addresses the failure of the Respondent, Stewart Wilson, to pay outstanding costs awards to the Applicant, Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari.

The court clarified the specific amounts owing from previous orders, including interest, and directed Mr. Wilson to pay a total of $80,377.22.

The court also ruled that payments should be made to the Applicant's counsel in trust, rather than directly to the Applicant, due to the contentious nature of the case.

The court declined to enforce costs awards from the Court of Appeal, stating it lacked jurisdiction to do so.

No costs were awarded for the submissions themselves due to both parties' non-compliance with court directions.

The applicant, as Estate Trustee, sought a declaration that a Henson trust (the Jasmine Trust) created by the respondent lawyer for the benefit of one of the estate beneficiaries was void.

The lawyer had prepared the trust documents naming the Estate as settlor and his own professional corporation as trustee, and transferred estate property to it without the applicant's knowledge or intention.

The court found the trust void and of no force and effect due to a lack of certainty of intention, certainty of objects, and the professional corporation's lack of capacity to act as a trustee.

The court ordered the trust assets, including a condominium, to be conveyed back to the Estate and awarded full indemnity costs against the respondents due to the lawyer's egregious conduct.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim alleging professional negligence in the handling and settling of a prior lawsuit.

The court denied the plaintiffs' last-minute adjournment request, finding their reasons insufficient and their non-compliance with the timetable unacceptable.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the claim on the grounds that it was without foundation, time-barred, and constituted an abuse of process, as many issues had been previously litigated and decided by other judges.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacNeil J. dated November 16, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $7,217.88.

The respondents brought a motion to remove the applicant's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because counsel acted for the applicant personally, as Estate Trustee, and for the Estate, and arguing counsel might become witnesses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that counsel acts for the Estate Trustee, not the Estate, and there was no evidence of a conflict or that counsel would need to testify.

The court also ordered the respondents to provide outstanding disclosure, pay $15,000 in costs thrown away for a previously adjourned hearing, and directed that any proceeds from the sale of a disputed condominium be paid into court.

The case management judge issued directions regarding multiple related actions.

The court ordered the sale of two vehicles held by a bailiff, with proceeds to be paid into court.

The court also set a timetable for a motion under Rule 60.12 to determine whether the respondent should be permitted to continue participating in the proceedings due to his failure to pay previous costs awards.

Other requests for relief by the respondent were deferred pending the outcome of the Rule 60.12 motion.

The Appellant was assessed under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act for funds received from her mother's RRSP upon her mother's death.

The Appellant argued that subsection 160(1) violated section 7 of the Charter and that she held the funds in trust.

The Tax Court of Canada found no Charter violation, as the assessment involved only economic interests.

The Court held that the Appellant received the RRSP proceeds in trust, not personally, and thus was not liable under subsection 160(1) for the initial transfer.

However, the Court found the Appellant liable for $23,599 in respect of distributions made from the trust to herself for which she provided no consideration.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The applicant sought an accounting of estate assets, including a commercial property and a joint trading account, from his brother and co-estate trustee.

The respondent claimed the trading account was gifted to him by their late mother and resisted accounting for the property.

Applying the presumption of resulting trust, the court found the trading account belonged to the estate and ordered a full accounting.

Due to the breakdown in the brothers' relationship and inherent conflicts of interest, the court ordered the appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) and made declarations regarding several disputed inter vivos transfers.

The appellants moved to stay orders granting the respondent mortgagee possession of two investment properties pending appeal.

The mortgage loans had been in default for over three years with no payments made.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found no serious question to be determined regarding the respondent's right to possession, no irreparable harm to the appellants, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

Following a guardianship trial where success was divided, the applicants sought full indemnity costs of the proceeding and costs of three interlocutory motions.

The court found that while the applicants were more successful than the respondents, their insistence on unworkable care plans and the parties' mutual animosity unduly lengthened the proceeding.

The court denied enhanced costs and costs of the interlocutory motions, awarding the applicants partial indemnity costs fixed at $56,760.72.

The applicant brought an application in Barrie seeking a declaration that a property transfer between the respondent husband and wife in Port Dover was a fraudulent conveyance.

The respondents argued the application was brought in the wrong jurisdiction and should proceed as an action.

The court stayed the proceeding, finding that under Rule 13.1.01(3) the matter relates to a mortgage and must be heard in the Central South Region where the property is located.

The court also directed that the application be converted to an action, as the subjective intent of the parties in transferring the property is a material fact in dispute requiring credibility determinations.

An appeal concerning the appointment of guardians for a 90-year-old mother's property and personal care.

David and Edward Carey, who were originally applicants, withdrew their support for the applicants' position and sought to be appointed as appellants.

The motion judge had previously removed them as applicants without making them respondents.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision to appoint guardians in the best interests of the mother.

The court ordered David and Edward Carey to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondents.

The appellants sought an adjournment of their appeal, which was granted with the respondent's consent.

The court set a peremptory hearing date of November 28, 2019, with a 45-minute time allocation (30 minutes for appellants, 15 minutes for respondent).

The appellants were required to perfect the appeal within 21 days, and the respondent was to file their factum within 10 days of receiving the perfected appeal.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $1,500, payable by the appellants within 21 days.

Non-compliance with the terms could result in dismissal of the appeal as abandoned.

This final judgment addresses the ongoing dispute among Jennie Carey's adult children regarding her guardianship for personal care and property.

Jennie, 91 and suffering from dementia, was found incapable of making her own decisions.

The court's interim decision had appointed Robert and Arthur as co-guardians for personal care, and Robert, Arthur, and Edward as co-guardians for property.

However, due to severe animosity and unilateral actions by both Robert and Arthur, the co-guardians were unable to cooperate.

The court found Arthur's financial conduct inexcusable and Robert's unilateral care plans not in Jennie's best interest.

Consequently, the court restructured the guardianship: Robert Carey was appointed sole guardian for Jennie's property, while Arthur Carey and Edward Carey were appointed co-guardians for Jennie's personal care.

The decision emphasizes the need for guardians to prioritize the incapable person's best interests over personal conflicts.

The respondents moved to quash an appeal on the grounds that the order appealed from was interlocutory.

The underlying Superior Court application involved a family dispute concerning the care of a 91-year-old woman with dementia.

Following a five-day trial, the trial judge made orders regarding her physical and financial care and adjourned the balance of the trial, reserving the right to make final determinations if the parties could not agree.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory because it did not determine the subject matter of the litigation, which remained outstanding.

The appeal was quashed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Supplementary reasons to an appeal of an order striking the appellant's fresh as amended statement of claim.

The respondents requested the court re-open the appeal and withdraw, alter, or modify its decision, arguing the court misapprehended the timing of the demand for particulars, the history of the bankruptcy proceeding, and conflated oral submissions with pleading content.

The court rejected the second and third arguments and, while acknowledging the respondents' point regarding the timing of the demand for particulars, declined to re-open the appeal as it was not in the interests of justice and the result would have been the same.