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.

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.