Sam Cosentino

This decision concerns the costs arising from protracted estate litigation over the administration and distribution of the estate of Maria Giuseppa Cosentino.

The court reviews the history of three related proceedings, the conduct of the parties and their counsel, and the reasonableness of legal fees claimed.

The court finds that much of the litigation was driven by sibling conflict and overreaching claims, particularly by Sam Cosentino, who acted as both lawyer and party.

The court fixes the costs payable from the estate, significantly reducing some claims, and authorizes the estate trustee during litigation to complete the administration and distribution of the estate.

The plaintiff, Sam Cosentino, brought a motion to amend his statement of claim for the fifth time to add new transactions, some of which occurred more than two years prior to the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments would cause prejudice to the defendants, particularly given a pending summary judgment motion.

The court also determined that the new claims were barred by the Limitations Act, as the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from the expired limitation period.

Additionally, the plaintiff's refusal to provide a blacklined pleading, as directed by the court, was noted.

The appellants appealed an application judge's discretionary decision to order the sale of a property rather than its partition, and brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained prior to the hearing with reasonable diligence.

The appeal was also dismissed, as the appellants failed to identify any error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the application judge's conclusion that an order for sale was appropriate given the number of owners and the nature of the land.

The appellants and respondents were involved in a long-standing boundary dispute concerning islands in Lake Huron.

The appellants reached a settlement with one of the defendants and sought to enforce it through consent orders.

The motion judge refused to grant the declarations contemplated by the settlement, finding they could affect the rights of the other defendants in the broader litigation.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that while the settling parties could resolve issues between themselves, they could not do so in a way that affected the other parties.

The appeal was dismissed, though some costs awards from the application were reduced.