Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Court File No.: CV-22-79381
Date: July 3, 2025
Style of Cause
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD MALCOLM LAFRANCE (aka MAC LAFRANCE), deceased
BETWEEN:
Steven LaFrance, Executor and Trustee, and Beneficiary of the Estate of Edward Malcolm LaFrance (aka Mac LaFrance)
Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim
Represented by N. Aresta and J. Martin
— and —
Susan LaFrance, Executor and Trustee, and Beneficiary of the Estate of Edward Malcolm LaFrance (aka Mac LaFrance), and Cheryl LaFrance, Executor and Trustee, and Beneficiary of the Estate of Edward Malcolm LaFrance (aka Mac LaFrance)
Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim
Represented by R. Sleightholm
Decision on Costs
On February 5, 2025, I released my trial decision in this matter. I invited the parties to make written submissions on costs if they were not able to resolve the issue amongst themselves. I have now received and reviewed those submissions.
The plaintiff seeks his costs of the trial, on a mixed partial/substantial indemnity basis, in the amount of $152,523.00, arguing that he was more successful on his claims than the defendants and that the defendants did not achieve a better result than provided in the Rule 49 Offer to Settle he had served on February 6, 2024, and their counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety. The defendants seek their costs, on a partial indemnity basis, in the amount of $89,964.75 to reflect the mixed result at trial.
In my view, there should be no costs awarded to any of the parties given the divided success at trial. While admittedly the plaintiff was successful in being declared a director of Cardinal Transportation Inc. (“Cardinal”), as of March 17, 2003, and the Estate was granted a resulting trust over the Loon Lake Property, the more primary and substantive claims advanced by the plaintiff at trial, that took up the bulk of the time, evidence and arguments, were ultimately dismissed.
Further, I am unable to ascertain if the plaintiff’s Offer to Settle actually represents a more successful result for the defendants than the trial decision since the valuations of the companies, Cardinal and 516155 Ontario Limited (“516 Ontario”), are not agreed upon by the parties. At trial, the valuations of the two companies were not determined and there was a lack of adequate financial documentation produced in order to make such determinations. Since the defendants were found to be shareholders of Cardinal, with Steven LaFrance, Susan LaFrance and Cheryl LaFrance equally owning one (1) share each, the value of those shares is presently unknown. In the end, it could be that the value of the defendants’ interests in both of the companies is greater than what was being offered to them in the plaintiff’s Offer to Settle.
In my view, this case also falls within the class of family estate/property disputes where it would be inappropriate to award costs and so I decline to do so. Here, since the parties could not agree on important estate matters to move forward, legitimate issues had to be resolved judicially and with mixed success.
In the end result, I conclude that it is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances that there be no trial costs awarded. Each of the parties shall bear their own costs.
B. MacNeil
Released: July 3, 2025