Rodrigue Escayola

The plaintiff, the deceased's former common-law spouse, claimed entitlement to a $190,000 life insurance policy provided by the deceased's employer.

The deceased died intestate, and the estate trustees disputed the plaintiff's claim, arguing the estate was the beneficiary.

The estate trustees moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, and the plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment.

The court dismissed both motions, applying the Hryniak framework to conclude that granting summary judgment would not fully dispose of the action, as claims against the employer would remain, creating a risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings on credibility.

The applicant, Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 282, sought a Norwich order compelling Yahoo!

Inc. and Yahoo!

Canada Co. to disclose the identity of an individual who sent allegedly defamatory emails to condominium owners and occupants under the alias "Ian Fleming." The court granted the Norwich order, finding that the applicant established a bona fide claim for defamation, Yahoo! was the only practicable source of the necessary information, the costs of compliance were nominal and indemnified, and the interests of justice favored disclosure.

The decision emphasized that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for individuals using the internet to publish defamatory statements.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order enforcing its declaration and rules against the respondents, who were leasing their unit on a short-term basis through platforms like Airbnb.

The respondents argued that the application should be stayed for failure to mediate/arbitrate, that other owners needed notice, and that the rules did not prohibit their activities.

The court found that the respondents had waived the arbitration requirement, that notice to other owners was unnecessary, and that the short-term rentals violated the 'single-family dwelling' restriction in the declaration.

The court ordered the respondents to comply with the declaration and rules.

The plaintiff, Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 449 (CCC 449), brought a motion for partial summary judgment against 622294 Ontario Limited (622) to enforce a Joint Use Agreement (JUA) regarding shared common roadway expenses.

CCC 449 sought a declaration that 622 remained liable for 38.45% of these expenses and that two small structures built by 622 did not trigger the JUA's reapportionment provisions.

The court also addressed 622's arguments regarding a statute-barred claim for asphalt repairs and alleged changes in cost calculation and square footage by CCC 449.

Following the dismissal of the defendant condominium corporation's motion for leave to appeal an order allowing the plaintiff to amend her statement of claim, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff relied on an offer to settle and the financial disparity between the parties.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs in the global amount of $7,000, noting that her offer to settle was reasonable and that the financial disparity between the parties could be considered under Rule 57.01(1)(i).

A condominium corporation sought a substantial costs award following an application brought to enforce compliance with the Condominium Act, 1998 and the condominium’s declaration and rules.

The underlying dispute involved alleged misconduct by a unit occupier that resulted in complaints and prior police involvement, but the matter was resolved after a consent order and no further incidents occurred.

The court considered the corporation’s request for full or substantial indemnity costs under s.134 of the Act but found the extensive application record unnecessary and disproportionate.

Emphasizing the court’s discretion over costs and the circumstances of the respondent’s disabilities and the settlement achieved, the court limited recovery to a reduced partial indemnity amount.

The applicant was awarded $5,000 in all‑inclusive costs payable within five years.

The defendant condominium corporation sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order permitting the plaintiff to amend a statement of claim to include additional water infiltration incidents and claims for breaches of statutory duties and oppression under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The moving party argued the amendments conflicted with authority requiring condominium disputes to proceed through mediation and arbitration under s. 132(4) of the Act.

The court held that the alleged conflicting authority concerned different legal principles and factual circumstances, and therefore did not satisfy the leave test under Rule 62.02(4)(a).

The court also found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s decision and concluded that oppression claims under s. 135 and certain statutory breach claims are not necessarily subject to the mandatory mediation and arbitration provisions.

Leave to appeal was refused.

Following a motion in which the plaintiff obtained an amendment to pleadings, the court considered written submissions on the issue of costs.

The court determined that although the plaintiff was successful on the amendment motion, the timing of the motion weighed against awarding costs.

Referring to reasons given in the earlier endorsement, the court concluded that the circumstances did not justify a costs award.

Accordingly, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

Following the dismissal of an application seeking to enforce a purported settlement agreement, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving parties argued for no costs or a significantly reduced amount, asserting the motion was brought based on a reasonable belief that an open settlement offer existed.

The responding parties sought partial indemnity costs based on their substantial success and the principles governing costs under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that costs should follow the event but reduced the amount claimed due to duplication arising from multiple counsel.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 payable to the respondents.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim in an action against a condominium corporation arising from water infiltration into a condominium unit.

The proposed amendments expanded the claim from a single water event to ongoing infiltration issues and added claims for breach of fiduciary duty and oppression under the Condominium Act.

The defendant opposed the amendments on limitation, pleading sufficiency, and abuse of process grounds.

The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and held that any prejudice could be compensated through costs or adjournment.

Leave to amend was granted, with terms allowing the defendant to file a fresh defence and conduct further discovery.

Following an application concerning enforcement of a condominium declaration restricting units to single family residence use, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicants had been largely successful on the underlying application, obtaining findings that the condominium corporation was obligated to enforce its declaration and that certain grandfathering provisions in a proposed rule were unreasonable.

The court held that litigation was necessary to compel compliance with the declaration and that the applicants achieved the substantive relief sought.

Considering the factors under rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including settlement offers and litigation conduct, the court awarded costs jointly and severally against the corporation and a director who had breached his statutory duties.

The applicants, unit owners at Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 111, sought a declaration that a proposed rule defining 'single family residence' and its grandfathering provisions were unreasonable and inconsistent with the condominium's declaration.

They also sought an oppression remedy against the board and a declaration that the board president breached his duties as a director.

The court found the ten-year grandfathering provision for existing owners to be unreasonable and inconsistent with the declaration, invalidating the rule.

The court dismissed the oppression claim against the board but found that the board president breached his standard of care as a director by actively undermining the board's efforts to enforce the declaration and acting in bad faith.

Following an appeal that upheld a contempt finding against a condominium board but varied the sanction, the Court of Appeal addressed the costs of the underlying contempt motion.

The motion judge had awarded $109,598 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal found that the board's conduct, while contemptuous, did not warrant elevated costs as it was not motivated by personal gain or vengeance.

The costs award was reduced to $35,000 on a partial indemnity scale, payable jointly and severally by the condominium corporation and the individual board members.

Condominium directors and the corporation appealed a finding of civil contempt arising from landscaping work that departed from an earlier endorsement requiring restoration of the condominium podium to its original design after garage repairs.

The majority held that, read in context, the endorsement was clear and unambiguous, that the appellants understood their obligations, and that they wilfully breached the order notwithstanding their asserted statutory authority under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court upheld the restoration order but varied the sanction, holding that the motion judge erred in principle by focusing on shifting restoration costs away from unit owners rather than on deterrence, and by imposing a very substantial financial burden without evidence of ability to pay.

The order requiring the individual directors to bear restoration costs personally was set aside and replaced with fines of $7,500 each; indemnification under s. 38 was unavailable.

Following a four‑day simplified procedure trial concerning the removal of trees and vegetation along a ditch, the plaintiffs obtained a modest damages award slightly above the Small Claims Court monetary limit.

The plaintiffs sought over $86,000 in partial indemnity costs, asserting more than 421 hours of legal work.

The defendants argued the request was excessive and asked that costs be refused or capped.

The court emphasized that cost awards under Rule 76 simplified procedure must remain reasonable and proportionate to the amount recovered.

Exercising discretion under Rule 57.05(1), the court fixed costs at $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Les demandeurs alléguaient que les défendeurs avaient empiété sur leur terrain et détruit des arbres et arbustes lors du creusage d’un fossé de drainage, réclamant des dommages-intérêts pour remplacement des arbres, perte de revenus d’érablière et dommages punitifs.

Le tribunal a conclu qu’un consentement oral avait été donné aux défendeurs pour nettoyer le fossé et semer sur une bande de terrain, mais que les défendeurs avaient agi avec négligence en élargissant excessivement le fossé et en arrachant inutilement de la végétation.

Les demandes pour empiétement, dommages punitifs et perte de revenus de sirop d’érable ont été rejetées.

Le tribunal a accordé des dommages limités pour la perte d’arbres et les coûts de replantation.

Les experts arboriculteurs présentés par les parties ont été jugés peu utiles pour établir précisément la valeur des dommages.

Competing motions arose in estate litigation challenging the validity of a deceased's remarriage and seeking declarations affecting the validity of a prior will.

The plaintiffs sought to amend the statement of claim to abandon damages and pursue declaratory relief, add the estate as a defendant, replace the litigation guardian, obtain disclosure of medical and capacity records, and adjust the timetable.

The defendants opposed and moved for security for costs, arguing the litigation guardian had relocated outside Ontario and that substitution of another guardian was an attempt to avoid security obligations.

The court granted leave to amend the claim and add the estate, but imposed terms including payment of costs thrown away and substantial security for costs.

Security for costs of $100,000 and additional security for wasted costs were ordered before further steps could be taken.

Unit owners brought a motion alleging contempt against a condominium corporation and its directors for failing to comply with a prior court endorsement enforcing minutes of settlement.

The earlier order required reinstatement of the condominium courtyard and podium landscaping to its pre‑repair configuration after the board’s alternative design failed to obtain the required two‑thirds owner approval under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The board instead implemented materially different design features, including altered planters, a different traffic circle, a new address sign, and reduced vegetation.

The court held that the prior endorsement constituted a clear and enforceable order and that the respondents deliberately and wilfully breached it.

Contempt was established beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court ordered restoration of the original configuration and imposed personal liability on the individual directors for the additional restoration costs.

Former leadership candidates sought a further extension of time to pay outstanding leadership campaign expenses under the Canada Elections Act after failing to comply with a prior judicial order extending the payment deadline.

The Chief Electoral Officer opposed the application, arguing that the statutory scheme permits only one judicial extension following authorization by the Chief Electoral Officer.

The court interpreted ss. 435.26 and 435.27 of the Canada Elections Act and held that the statutory precondition allowing a judge to grant an extension had already been exhausted by the earlier judicial order.

In any event, the applicants failed to establish that their inability to comply with the prior order resulted from reasons beyond their control.

The application for a further extension was dismissed.

Costs were determined following a successful motion removing the plaintiffs’ solicitors due to a conflict of interest arising from the hiring of a lawyer who previously acted for the defendant and the deceased in related matters.

The court found that the lawyer possessed confidential and privileged information and had disclosed it to the firm representing the plaintiffs, and that the firm failed to implement effective screening measures.

The defendant and a supporting third party sought substantial or full indemnity costs.

The court concluded that the conduct of the plaintiffs’ counsel was sufficiently egregious to warrant full indemnity costs.

Costs were awarded to both the moving defendant and the third party, with a portion ordered to be paid personally by the solicitors under Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.