Ryan Edwin Flewelling

This costs decision follows the settlement of a real property dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

The court addresses the appropriate allocation of costs after the parties settled the action for $14,000, an amount within the Small Claims Court’s jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs, alleging the defendants’ conduct prolonged the litigation, while the defendants sought costs from the plaintiffs, arguing the action should have been brought in Small Claims Court.

The court found neither party’s conduct justified elevated costs, and, applying the relevant legal principles, ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs $2,170.01 in costs, reflecting a partial indemnity basis and the effect of an unaccepted offer to settle.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for malicious prosecution.

The plaintiff had been criminally charged with harassment and dangerous driving based on reports and video evidence provided by the defendants, which charges were later stayed.

The court found that the defendants did not initiate the criminal proceedings, as the police conducted an independent investigation and exercised their own discretion.

Furthermore, even if the defendants were deemed initiators, the court found they had reasonable and probable grounds for their complaints and that malice was not the sole basis for the prosecution.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

This decision fixed the costs payable following a summary trial where the plaintiff was found not to be a shareholder.

The defendants, as the successful parties at trial, were presumptively entitled to costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $180,000 to the defendants, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court declined to set off these costs against any amounts potentially due to the plaintiff on a future reference but suspended enforcement of the costs award for 60 days to allow for potential settlement negotiations.

The decision considered factors such as the complexity of issues, the conduct of both parties regarding disclosure, and proportionality, noting that a "flat 5% disbursement fee" is not recoverable as party-and-party costs.

This ruling addresses the costs of an application for guardianship of person and property.

The applicant, Stephen Vriend, sought costs on a full indemnity scale from Ellen Charlotte Vriend's property.

The court granted Stephen leave to file an updated bill of costs and fixed his costs at a reduced amount, payable from Ellen's property.

The court also reiterated the process for Section 3 counsel to claim their costs, emphasizing that such costs must be determined by the court, not by private agreement.

The plaintiff, Chase Wong, brought an application, converted to a summary trial, seeking a 50% ownership interest in the defendant corporation, 10658987 Canada Inc., and oppression remedies under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court found no binding agreement for the plaintiff to become a 50% owner, as discussions were ongoing and conditional.

While the plaintiff contributed capital and services, the court determined he did not have a reasonable expectation of ownership sufficient to grant an oppression remedy for shares.

Instead, the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of his investment and reimbursement for services provided, with an accounting to quantify these amounts.

This application under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, concerned the guardianship of property for an incapable individual.

The court previously declared the individual incapable of personal care and appointed the applicant as guardian of the person.

This ruling addressed the guardianship of property, finding the individual incapable of managing property.

The court appointed the applicant and the individual's sister as joint guardians of property, approving their management plan.

The court dismissed a request for single-signature reimbursement for small expenses and ordered the guardians to post a one-time security bond of $1,440,000, to be paid from the incapable person's assets, rejecting the applicant's argument against security based on future inheritance.

The court also addressed the Public Guardian and Trustee's costs and clarified issues regarding the estate of the incapable person's late husband.

Costs for the applicant and Section 3 counsel were adjourned for further submissions.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of McLean J. dated May 27, 2021.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the moving parties, payable at the discretion of the appeal panel.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims of elder abuse and civil fraud, the successful defendants sought their costs of the action.

The court found that the plaintiffs engaged in reprehensible conduct by pursuing baseless allegations of fraud, deceit, and misappropriation against the defendants.

Consequently, the court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs up to the date of trial and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing the total costs award at $100,000.

The plaintiffs, a mother and daughter, brought an action against the mother's son, his spouse, and their son, alleging that the son misappropriated £67,000 from a joint bank account.

The defendants argued that the funds were a valid inter vivos gift.

The court found that the funds belonged to the mother and that she intended to gift them to her son and grandson.

The court also dismissed claims of undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, and false representations, concluding that the mother's decision was made freely and with full capacity.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid invoices and breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The corporate defendant conceded liability for the invoices.

The issue was whether the individual defendant, the sole directing mind of the corporation, was personally liable for breach of trust under s. 13.

The plaintiff argued that the corporation's rental income used to self-finance the improvements constituted a trust fund under s. 7(1).

The court dismissed the motion against the individual defendant, holding that s. 7(1) requires a distinct fund specifically earmarked for financing the construction, and general revenues do not qualify.

The defendants moved to set aside a Registrar's administrative order dismissing their appeal to the Divisional Court for delay, and sought an extension of time to perfect the appeal.

The underlying action involved a claim for unpaid accounting invoices where default judgment had been partially set aside by a Master.

The court found that the defendants had engaged in contumelious delay throughout the proceedings, failed to provide a valid explanation for failing to perfect the appeal, and that the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The applicant brought an application against his sister regarding the management of their incapable mother's finances under a continuing power of attorney.

The respondent had sold the mother's house and placed the proceeds in a trust account, refusing the applicant access due to allegations of prior financial mismanagement.

The court directed that the siblings must act jointly as attorneys pursuant to the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court ordered the parties to pass their accounts, open a joint investment account for the sale proceeds, maintain a joint chequing account for the mother's immediate needs, and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for the mother.

Both parties were awarded partial costs payable from the sale proceeds.

The applicant sought relief from the statutory penalty imposed for failing to file an audited municipal campaign financial statement by the deadline under the Municipal Elections Act.

The financial statement had been filed three minutes late and without the required audit due to financial hardship, though the audited version was later filed and materially identical.

The municipality argued that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to waive the statutory penalty barring the applicant from running in the next municipal election.

The court held that relief could be granted by applying the good‑faith and inadvertence criteria in s. 92(6) of the Act, even where no prosecution had been initiated.

Finding the applicant acted in good faith, committed an error in judgment, and caused no prejudice, the court waived the penalty.

The appellants and respondents are adjoining neighbours involved in a dispute over a parking easement on the respondents' property.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order that limited their parking to a single vehicle and required them to park so as not to restrict the respondents' backyard access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly interpreted the original grant of easement and the surrounding circumstances, which indicated an intention to create a right to park only one vehicle.

The respondents' cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed.

A bankrupt chiropractor applied for discharge from bankruptcy arising primarily from large personal income tax liabilities exceeding $200,000.

The Canada Revenue Agency, the trustee, and the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy opposed discharge, alleging improper asset transfers, inaccurate disclosures, and failure to make reasonable efforts to pay tax debts.

The court found that the bankruptcy was tax-driven under s. 172.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and that the bankrupt had transferred assets to his spouse at artificially low values and failed to disclose significant transactions, including RRSP withdrawals and property transfers.

The court also determined that the bankrupt’s reported income was artificially low and imputed a higher income based on professional capacity.

Balancing the statutory factors and the need to maintain the integrity of the bankruptcy system, the court granted a conditional discharge requiring substantial payments and further financial disclosure.