SCJ 2025

This costs endorsement follows the court’s decision granting Ontario Heritage Trust’s application for a declaration of trespass and related relief.

The court considers the parties’ submissions on costs, including arguments about duplication of effort and offers to settle.

The Trust is awarded its requested costs of $90,000, and the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation is awarded $71,000, both to be paid by Mr. Hunter.

The court applies the principles from the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act, as well as appellate guidance on costs discretion.

The court considered a motion by the moving defendants for an order requiring the plaintiff, River City Christian Reformed Church, to pay security for costs under Rule 56.01(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, a not-for-profit corporation, sought relief for alleged fraud, misrepresentation, breach of duty, oppression, and unjust enrichment relating to a failed property acquisition.

The court found that the plaintiff was impecunious and that its claim was not plainly devoid of merit, and therefore dismissed the motion for security for costs.

The plaintiff, Mihrali Celik, sought repayment of $240,000 USD allegedly taken by the defendants in 1995, along with damages and interest.

The defendants moved to strike the claim as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, arguing it was the third attempt to litigate the same matter, previously dismissed by two courts and the Court of Appeal.

The court found the claim barred by both issue and cause of action estoppel and as an abuse of process, striking the claim without leave to amend.

Costs of $13,000 were awarded to the defendants.

The court considered a motion to change a final order regarding child support, including retroactive and ongoing support, and section 7 expenses.

The court found the respondent had failed to comply with disclosure obligations and imputed an income of $97,240 to him, ordering support and arrears accordingly.

The court also fixed section 7 arrears and awarded costs to the applicant, emphasizing the respondent’s chronic non-compliance and the need to discourage such conduct.

This is a decision on costs following a judgment in which both parties received monetary awards, but the net result favoured College Grain Inc. The court considered the parties’ offers to settle, the proportionality of costs, and the policy behind the Simplified Rules.

Ultimately, the court awarded College Grain Inc. $50,000 plus HST for fees and $35,886.52 for disbursements, for a total of $92,386.52, to be paid by Wilhelm Concrete.

The court considered the Crown's application to admit evidence of the accused's other discreditable conduct in a double murder trial.

The Crown sought to introduce statements made by the accused in recorded intercepts and threatening text messages sent weeks after the murders.

The court reviewed the legal principles governing the admissibility of similar fact and propensity evidence, ultimately finding that the probative value of the proposed evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The application to admit the evidence was dismissed.

The court dismissed the application by Roland Foch and the estate of Frank Foch against Sharon Gun Club and related entities.

The applicants sought various remedies including oppression, a declaration of illegal operation, and financial/accounting relief.

The court found the applicants lacked standing against two of the three respondents, that the application was barred by prior litigation and settlement, and that the claims were statute-barred.

On the merits, the court found no evidence of oppression, financial impropriety, or illegal operation.

The court also granted a limited sealing order for a redacted shareholder list exhibit.

The decision addresses a motion to amend the Statement of Claim in a civil action brought by Gurupdesh Pandher against the University of Windsor and several individuals.

The court considers whether the plaintiff may add Human Rights Code claims from prior HRTO applications, the addition of new defendants, the sufficiency of defamation pleadings, the scope of misfeasance in public office, the introduction of new human rights grounds, the effect of the collective agreement and labour arbitration, the use of documents subject to the deemed or implied undertaking rule, and the pleading of matters subject to settlement privilege.

The court grants some amendments, strikes others, and provides detailed directions for further pleadings.

This costs decision follows a lengthy guardianship and estate litigation between Edi Ferritto and her brother, Alfredo Ferritto, regarding their mother Lucia Ferritto.

The court reviews the procedural history, the parties' conduct, and the applicable legal principles for awarding costs.

Edi Ferritto, as the successful party, is awarded substantial indemnity costs for the trial and partial indemnity costs for the applications and motions, with certain reductions.

The decision details the calculation of fees and disbursements, and the rationale for the scale of costs awarded.

The applicant, Chad Rolling, sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter was breached.

The court found that, after deducting periods of delay attributable to the defence, the net delay did not exceed the 30-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, Parvez Peerpasha Huseni Inamdar, sought to rescind an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a vacant property after discovering a restrictive covenant limiting development to a single detached house.

The court found that the covenant was a registered restrictive covenant excepted by the agreement, and that the applicant, a sophisticated purchaser, had removed due diligence conditions and assumed the risk.

The application for rescission was dismissed.

The decision concerns the bail application of Matias Domingo Sanchez Nanuclef, who faces extradition to the United States for his alleged involvement in a $15 million jewellery store burglary in San Diego.

The court reviews the factual background, the legal onus for bail in extradition cases, and the proposed plan of release.

The application is denied on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, with the court finding that the applicant is not ordinarily resident in Canada, poses a flight risk, and that detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The appellant, Janice Antonio, Executrix of The Estate of Inez Antonio, appealed a discretionary decision of an Associate Justice to extend the time to set the action down for trial under rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the Associate Justice correctly identified and applied the legal test, considered the relevant evidence, and exercised discretion appropriately.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

This decision concerns a contested application regarding the guardianship of an incapable adult, Kathleen Power, and the resulting costs order.

The applicant, Karen Skinner, was successful in being appointed as guardian for property and personal care.

The court considered the effect of a prior settlement agreement and the conduct of the parties in determining costs, ultimately awarding full indemnity costs to the applicant, with a portion to be paid from the mother’s estate and the remainder personally by the unsuccessful, self-represented sisters.

The court considered motions regarding the limitation periods applicable to a counter-application and Family Law Act claims in the estate of Murray Gibbons.

Emilia Gibbons sought to dismiss Edward Gibbons' counter-application as statute-barred, while the respondents sought to dismiss Emilia's Family Law Act claims for the same reason.

The court found the counter-application was out of time and dismissed it, but granted an extension for Emilia's Family Law Act claims, allowing them to proceed.

This decision resolves the financial issues arising from the separation of Jamilla Jaha and Mabruck Mengele, including the imputation of income, calculation of child and spousal support, and equalization of property.

The court found that the applicant, Ms. Jaha, was intentionally underemployed and imputed income to her accordingly.

The court dismissed her motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and declined to revisit settled parenting and equalization issues.

The court also set out detailed calculations for support arrears and provided for a review of spousal support in three years, in anticipation of the respondent’s retirement.

The court considered two competing applications between brothers who jointly owned a triplex property.

Domenic Rosso sought to enforce an alleged oral agreement for the purchase of Bruno Rosso’s one-third interest in the property, while Bruno Rosso sought partition and sale of the property.

The court found that there was no enforceable oral contract due to lack of agreement on essential terms, and that even if there had been, it would have been unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds and not saved by part performance.

The court granted Bruno’s application for partition and sale, and ordered an accounting.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate scale and quantum of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff Jordan’s claim for fire loss under an insurance policy.

The court rejected the defendants’ request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the circumstances did not justify such an award.

The court fixed costs at $10,000 for each defendant, inclusive of disbursements, emphasizing proportionality and the absence of scandalous or outrageous conduct.

The court considered an application by Place Laurier Limited for leave to appeal an arbitration award regarding the fair market value of land subject to a ground lease.

The applicant argued the arbitrator failed to apply the correct legal test for determining the highest and best use of the land and did not provide sufficient reasons for the valuation.

The court found that while some issues raised extricable questions of law, the arbitrator had not erred in law and provided sufficient reasons.

The appeal was dismissed.