Simon J. Adler

Following a trial where the plaintiff successfully set aside a fraudulent conveyance based on a forged signature, the plaintiff sought costs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the defendant who committed the forgery, finding that forging a signature to transfer a home constitutes reprehensible conduct.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded against the other unsuccessful defendants who were not implicated in the forgery.

The defendants moved for a stay of a civil action on the basis that the dispute fell within an arbitration clause contained in a unanimous shareholders agreement.

The plaintiffs alleged breaches of confidentiality, non‑competition, fiduciary duties, and economic relations arising after one founder left the company and formed a competing business.

The court applied s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 and the competence‑competence principle, concluding that it was at least arguable the dispute fell within the arbitration agreement.

The presence of a corporate defendant that was not a signatory and the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief did not prevent referral to arbitration.

The court stayed the action and directed that the arbitrator determine jurisdiction and the merits of the dispute.

Following a civil trial involving a dispute between the plaintiff and one defendant, the successful defendant sought recovery of legal costs totaling $62,762.36 based on partial and substantial indemnity, relying in part on offers to settle delivered shortly before trial.

The plaintiff conceded entitlement to costs but argued the amount claimed was excessive and that certain docketed time, including attendance of a student at trial, was unnecessary.

The court found the case relatively simple and rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs based on late offers to settle.

However, the court held the plaintiff’s conduct at trial warranted more than partial indemnity costs.

A lump sum costs award of $47,000 inclusive was fixed and ordered payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff sued a lawyer, alleging the lawyer acted for him on a mortgage transaction and breached trust obligations by disbursing $70,000 of the proceeds to a third party instead of the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the claim against the lawyer, finding that the plaintiff was actually represented by his spouse, who was also a lawyer, and that the defendant lawyer had followed instructions to disburse the funds.

The court made strong adverse credibility findings against the plaintiff and his spouse.

Judgment was granted against the third party who received the funds.