Robert W. Scriven

The respondent sought costs, including costs against the applicant's counsel personally, following the dismissal of the applicant's unmeritorious claim.

The Divisional Court declined to order costs against counsel, noting that such awards are to be rare.

The court fixed global costs, including costs of the initial application, motion for leave, appeal, and the present motion, at $22,500 payable by the applicant's estate.

A dissenting judge would have awarded $45,000 on a substantial indemnity basis jointly and severally against the estate and the applicant's counsel.

The moving party sought costs against the responding party's solicitor personally and against the responding party's estate following the dismissal of the underlying application.

At the costs hearing, the solicitor attempted to represent both himself and the estate.

The Divisional Court identified a clear conflict of interest, as the solicitor's arguments against personal liability were adverse to the estate's interests.

The court adjourned the motion, directing the solicitor and the estate's representative to obtain independent legal advice.

In an estates proceeding involving an application to pass accounts, a beneficiary brought a motion seeking disclosure of bank records from several years before the estate trustees assumed their roles.

The moving party argued that substantial proceeds from the sale of the deceased’s home appeared unaccounted for and requested that the estate trustees sign releases permitting access to earlier bank records.

The court held that estate trustees are not obligated to investigate or disclose financial records predating their fiduciary responsibilities absent evidence linking them to alleged improprieties.

The evidentiary record did not establish a reasonable basis to infer wrongdoing or missing funds.

The motion for disclosure was dismissed.

A private prosecution appeal under the Provincial Offences Act concerning a charge of driving a motorized vehicle on a beach in violation of a municipal bylaw.

The appellant (informant and prosecutor) failed to appear on the trial date due to a genuine mistake regarding the date.

The justice of the peace dismissed the charge and awarded substantial costs against the appellant without notice or hearing.

The appeal court found that while the justice had discretion to dismiss, the circumstances—including unnecessary court-initiated adjournments, confusion about withdrawal versus dismissal authority, and an unjustified costs award—warranted intervention in the interests of justice.

The court set aside the dismissal and costs order, ordering a new trial before a different justice.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondent, an owner of the corporate respondent, as a party to the human rights application.

The corporate respondent accepted liability for the individual respondent's alleged conduct and the applicant did not oppose the request.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual respondent and granted the request to remove him as a party.