Simon Joseph Adler

The plaintiff, Ronald Culbert, sought rectification of title to his property, alleging that his signature on an Acknowledgment and Direction for transfer of title to his mother, Marjorie Culbert, was forged by his brother, Timothy Culbert.

The property subsequently passed to Jessica Culbert (Timothy's daughter) upon Marjorie's death.

The court found that Timothy Culbert fabricated his evidence regarding the signing of the document and concluded that he forged Ronald's signature.

Applying sections 155 and 159 of the Land Titles Act, the court declared the transfer fraudulent and void, ordering rectification of the register to restore Ronald as the beneficial owner.

The court also determined that the defendants could retain income generated from the property during their possession, offsetting their responsibility for expenses, based on proportionality.

Following reasons determining a contract interpretation dispute regarding the price payable to repurchase property, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $32,000, while one opposing party proposed a $10,000 award and another argued that no costs should be ordered.

Applying the principles in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the jurisprudence emphasizing fairness and reasonableness, the court found the requested costs excessive given the number of lawyers involved and the volume of hours billed.

The court reduced the award and fixed costs at $15,000 payable by one applicant, noting that the other applicant had minimal involvement in the litigation.

Following dismissal of a motion for an interim injunction, the successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $26,270.93 for the interlocutory proceeding.

The court acknowledged the general presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and that interlocutory costs are ordinarily payable forthwith.

However, given that the underlying dispute raised a serious issue to be tried concerning alleged use of a protected confectionery recipe and related marketing practices, the court concluded that the justice of the case warranted a different approach.

Costs of the motion were therefore reserved to the trial judge, who would be better positioned to assess entitlement in the context of the full record.

The applicants sought a declaration that they could exercise a contractual option to repurchase real property for $400,000 after crediting an $800,000 vendor take‑back mortgage against a stated repurchase price of $1,200,000.

The respondent argued the mortgage clause required payment of the full $1,200,000 to reacquire the property, with the mortgage deemed satisfied upon payment.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation and held the clause was unambiguous: exercising the option required payment of $1,200,000 without deduction for the outstanding mortgage.

Contextual evidence and surrounding circumstances did not alter the plain wording, and the contra proferentem rule was inapplicable because both parties participated in drafting the agreement.

The application was dismissed and the respondent’s cross‑application granted declaring that the option could only be exercised upon payment of $1,200,000 subject to normal real estate adjustments.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from using the term “mint smoothie” to describe a chocolate confection, alleging trademark infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act.

The court accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried given the parties’ relationship, the defendants’ marketing references to family recipes, and the existence of a registered trademark.

However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm as required by the RJR‑MacDonald test.

Evidence of marketplace confusion was largely hearsay and insufficient, and any potential damages could be quantified.

The balance of convenience also favoured the defendants because the disputed product represented a significant portion of their sales.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

Following a successful trial resulting in damages of $400,000 for the applicants, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $213,000 based on early settlement offers.

The respondents accepted that costs were payable but argued for a lower partial indemnity award.

The court held that the settlement offers did not justify substantial indemnity costs and that partial indemnity costs were appropriate after considering Rule 50.10 factors including trial length, complexity, and importance of the issues.

Costs were fixed at $150,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

Multiple defendants brought motions seeking security for costs against a plaintiff who was ordinarily resident outside Ontario in two related civil actions.

The plaintiff argued impecuniosity and contended that an order for security would effectively drive him from the litigation.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold required to establish impecuniosity because he provided outdated financial disclosure and did not produce complete, current documentation regarding income, assets, liabilities, and borrowing capacity.

Finding the requested security amounts reasonable given the anticipated complexity and duration of the litigation, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in both actions, failing which the proceedings would be stayed.