CITATION: Craib et al v. Craib et al, 2026 ONSC 3599

COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-0440-ES

DATE: 2026-06-19

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

GARY WILLIAM CRAIB, personally and as Estate Trustee of the ESTATE OF WILLIAM STANLEY CRAIB, deceased and ESTATE OF ANNE ELIZABETH CRAIB, deceased

M. Holervich, & C. Bailee Counsel for the Applicant/Moving Party P. Portman, Counsel for Gary William Craib

Applicant/Moving Party

• and -

JAMES ALEXANDER CRAIB and MICHAEL THOMAS CRAIB, each personally and as Estate Trustees of the ESTATE OF ANNE ELIZABETH CRAIB, deceased, the ESTATE OF WILLIAM STANLEY CRAIB, deceased and THE ESTATE OF ANNE ELIZABETH CRAIB, deceased

C. Carr, Counsel for the Respondents James Alexander Craib and Michael Thomas Craib

Respondents

HEARD: in writing

Madam Justice C.C.M. Siran

Endorsement on Costs

1On May 26, 2026, I released my reasons on the motion indicating that should costs not be resolved between the parties, written submissions could be provided.

2The motion was brought by Gary Craib (“Gary”), both in his personal capacity and as an Estate Trustee for the Estates of both of his parents. He requested an order declaring certain funds were subject to a resulting trust in favour of the Estate of Anne from a joint Scotiabank account of his mother and the Respondent James Craib, a production order of all statements regarding this account, and the delivery of any funds into trust or the Court.

3After reviewing the evidence, I ordered the bank statement of the joint Scotiabank account at the time of the passing of Anne Craib be produced. I dismissed all other reliefs.

4The issue here is who gets costs, who pays costs, and how much. Of note, there is no issued Certificates of Appointment for either of the Estates.

5The Respondents seek costs of $4,275.92 on a substantial indemnity basis or alternatively, $3,206.94 on a partial indemnity basis. They seek these costs personally against Gary. They argue that they were successful in defending the main substance of the motion, namely the declaration of a resulting trust, along with the dismissal of the request for broad disclosure and the payment of monies into Court. They argue the only relief granted, the production of the single bank statement, represented limited disclosure that they had proposed to the Respondents as a solution prior to the motion. They provided a supporting email to this effect. To that end, they advance they are the successful party as their proposal of April 20, 2026, “mirrored” the result of the motion.

6Gary submits the motion was reasonable and ultimately advanced the matter by clarifying that the presumption of a resulting trust applies to the account and producing the required statement, which I noted in my decision seemingly should have been produced at some point in the proceedings already. They argue that the Respondent James Craib, has had access to the information ordered for years and had not provided it, relying on his assertion that the account was a gift. Gary does not seek costs but instead submits that neither side was more successful that the other on this motion, and the fairest disposition would be to order that costs of this motion are determined at the final disposition of the matter. They argue that any cost award may discourage resolution by pouring additional fuel on the fire.

Discussion

7Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act make clear the Court can award costs having regard to the result of the proceeding, the reasonableness of the parties’ positions, the conduct of the parties, and any step that unnecessarily increased the costs of the proceeding. Costs are entirely discretionary and unique to the circumstances of each matter.

8There was divided success on the motion. Gary was successful in having the bank statement released as of the date of the death of the mother. The Responding Parties were successful in having all other reliefs dismissed.

9Although divided, that does not mean it was equal. I commented in my reasons that the declaration for a resulting trust was premature, and that Gary failed to particularize why all statements and evidence of disposition were required. In my view, the bulk of the two-hour hearing was focused on the resulting trust issue and was the one most strenuously advanced by Gary. I do not see the fact that the Respondents raised standing and limitations in defence of this motion as reason to discount their successful defence.

10Where the Respondents have erred was in not actually producing that statement. They suggested in their April 20, 2026, email exchange, that this was the appropriate avenue to go, but did not actually do it. I agree with Gary that until ordered in this motion, for years they have refused to produce the statement. To me, that signals that that the reasonableness and conduct of the Respondents was not as innocent as they would like me to accept and they are partly to blame for the costs incurred.

11In my view, if they had simply provided the bank account information on the date of death, this motion should (or could) have been entirely avoided. Had it proceeded in those circumstances, I do not think I would have hesitated in ordering the substantial indemnity costs in the case.

12But it did not. Through this motion, Gary obtained information he needed and was entitled to get. Cooler heads should have prevailed on this point and the bank statement provided without a motion.

13But Gary also used up valuable court time on a doomed argument for the resulting trust to do so. I cannot accept Gary’s submissions that avoiding costs at this stage will “reward” a party and may work to discourage resolution going forward. I suggest the opposite is true – these parties have already spent years arguing with little advancement, even though the Court has provided direction and assistance. Costs at this stage are warranted to demonstrate that when you ask the Court to intervene, you can expect the cost consequences to follow.

14Both parties ignored the order of the Court to have an Estate Trustee During Litigation appointed. All parties seem to me to be acting in their own personal interest at this time. To that end, I accept that costs should be paid personally by Gary for this motion, and not by the Estates.

15I accept that the Bill of Costs for the Respondents is reasonable and fair in the context of the time, experience, and nature of the motion on a partial indemnity basis. However, I find that the Respondents stubborn refusal to produce this document was unreasonable and discount their entitlement appropriately. They are equally responsible, in my view.

16The Respondents shall have their costs of defending the motion fixed in the amount of $1,600.00 payable by the Moving Party, Gary Craib, to the Respondents within 30 days.

The Hon. Madam Justice C.C.M. Siran