Richard S. Nishimura

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the action from Ottawa to Toronto, alleging an apprehension of institutional bias among the judiciary in Ottawa.

The defendant relied on an affidavit referencing a separate action involving a related company, which had resulted in adverse outcomes.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of bias, no connection to Toronto, and noting that the contract was executed and performed in Ottawa.

The motion was deemed ill-conceived and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The moving parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion to compel the responding party to attend an examination in aid of execution.

The court disallowed costs claimed for the preparation of costs submissions and for the time of a lawyer who attended cross-examination as a witness.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded the moving parties reasonable costs fixed at $4,500.

The plaintiff, Farley Manufacturing Inc., brought a motion for an order under Rule 32 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to inspect the defendant, Oz Optics Ltd.'s, dome facility by two experts and senior representatives.

Oz Optics objected to one expert's qualification and the presence of plaintiff's representatives.

Farley Manufacturing also sought an order for mediation within 90 days, which Oz Optics opposed, arguing it should occur after expert reports.

The court granted the inspection order, finding it "useful" and "probative," and allowed the plaintiff's chosen experts and representatives to attend.

The court also ordered Oz Optics to pay the travel and accommodation costs for one expert due to Oz Optics' unreasonable conduct in obstructing the inspection.

Mediation was ordered to be held within 90 days.

The applicant, Jon Jessie William Driscoll, sought a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will, naming him as the sole beneficiary of his mother, Shirley Driscoll's, estate.

Three of Shirley's daughters (the objectors/respondents) challenged the will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

The court conducted a summary trial, reviewing medical evidence and family testimony.

The court found that Shirley Driscoll possessed testamentary capacity when she executed her will and was not subjected to undue influence.

The decision emphasized that a testator has the right to treat beneficiaries unjustly, and the will reflected Shirley's long-held mindset of primogeniture.

The objections were dismissed, and Jon Driscoll was confirmed as Estate Trustee.