Stephen A. Victor

Costs endorsement following a will challenge and a dependant support claim.

The applicant was unsuccessful in challenging the 2018 Wills but partially successful in his dependency claim.

The court applied the McGrath framework to determine if public policy considerations warranted costs being paid from the estate.

The court found public policy applied to the dependency claim but not the will challenge.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis, with the successful respondent on the will challenge receiving $200,000 and the applicant receiving $125,000 for the dependency claim.

After a 40% estate contribution to the applicant's costs and a set-off, the applicant was ordered to pay a net amount of $125,000 to the respondent.

In an estate appeal, the court held that the judgment under appeal was, on its face, made under the Succession Law Reform Act.

Because s. 76 grants exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Divisional Court for appeals under that Act, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed on that basis.

The court also ordered costs payable to the respondent by the estate in an agreed all-inclusive amount.

The court considered Jack Shapiro’s application for dependant support and a declaration of trust over a condominium following the death of his wife, Carol-Sue Shapiro.

The court found that Jack was a dependant under the Succession Law Reform Act and that Carol-Sue had not made adequate provision for his support in her will.

The court ordered that title to the matrimonial condominium be transferred to Jack, in addition to the $250,000 bequest, balancing Jack’s needs and Carol-Sue’s testamentary intentions to leave the majority of her estate to her son, Michael Shapiro.

This case concerns an application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee, which was challenged by the deceased's husband and daughter on grounds of undue influence and testamentary fraud.

The objectors alleged that the deceased's son and his wife fraudulently influenced the deceased to disinherit her daughter and significantly reduce her husband's inheritance by instilling false beliefs about the daughter's husband and the husband's financial well-being.

The court found no evidence that the son and his wife perpetrated or encouraged these alleged falsehoods.

The deceased's testamentary changes were determined to be her own decisions, made gradually over time, based on her long-standing concerns about protecting the family's wealth from her son-in-law, and after receiving independent professional advice.

The court dismissed the objections, declared the wills valid, and granted the application for the Certificate of Appointment.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for financial disclosure.

The applicant, Barbara Cohen, sought extensive financial disclosure from the Estate of Sidney Cohen and other parties, which the court found to be an attempt to circumvent a prior bifurcation order by Justice Audet.

The court dismissed the disclosure motion and subsequently awarded costs to the successful respondents and non-parties, including the Estate, Susan Charendoff, Brian Cohen, and several corporate non-parties.

The decision addresses the principles of costs, including partial indemnification, encouraging settlement, discouraging inappropriate behavior, and ensuring justice, while considering the reasonableness and proportionality of the requested amounts.

The court held a voir dire to determine the testimonial capacity of the applicant, Barbara Cohen, who suffers from mild dementia.

The respondents argued she had capacity, while her counsel argued she lacked it.

Based on expert reports from two geriatric specialists (Dr. Joel Sadavoy and Dr. Richard Shulman) and the court's own questioning of Barbara, the court found that the applicant lacked the capacity to testify due to inconsistent memory, difficulty communicating complex ideas, and potential for increased anxiety under cross-examination.

The court ruled that her previous questioning transcripts would be filed instead of compelling her live testimony.

The plaintiff, a former Minister of State, brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendants, a lawyer and his law firm.

The defendants had refused to answer questions based on solicitor-client privilege and parliamentary privilege.

The court held that asserting privilege was not a collateral attack on a previous order refusing to strike the claim.

The court upheld the assertion of parliamentary privilege regarding testimony before a parliamentary committee.

However, the court found the assertion of solicitor-client privilege to be overbroad and ordered the defendants to answer certain questions that did not reveal privileged communications.

The objectors, the widower and daughter of the deceased, brought a motion for directions under Rule 75.06 challenging the validity of the deceased's 2018 wills on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the applicant son.

The court found the objectors met the minimal evidentiary threshold to call the wills into question.

The court ordered broad documentary discovery and the examination of the drafting lawyer, and appointed an independent estate trustee during litigation on an interim basis to ensure fairness and preserve estate assets.

Following motions by both parties regarding refusals and questions taken under advisement during questioning, the Estate Trustee was largely successful.

Both parties sought costs of the motions.

The court determined the Estate Trustee's entitlement to costs as the successful party and fixed the quantum on a partial indemnity basis at $25,200, plus $500 for a prior appointment, payable by the applicant.

The respondent estate brought a motion on the first day of trial to amend its Answer to include the equitable defence of laches against the applicant's claim to set aside a marriage contract.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that laches is not a legally tenable defence to a statutory claim under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act and that the amendment would cause uncompensable prejudice.

The court granted the motion, finding that a claim for declaratory relief under section 56(4) is equitable in nature and can be defended by laches.

The court also found that any disadvantage to the applicant could be compensated by costs, an adjournment, or trial management.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from the decisions of Corthorn J. and Shelston J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

In a bifurcated family law and estate proceeding, both the applicant and the respondent estate brought motions to compel answers to questions refused or taken under advisement during questioning.

The central issue for the first phase of the trial was the validity and enforceability of a 1986 marriage contract.

The court ordered the applicant to produce documents relating to her prior divorce and records from her physician and counsellor, finding them relevant to her understanding of domestic contracts.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to compel the estate trustee to answer questions regarding the deceased's subsequent estate planning and relationships with lawyers, finding them irrelevant to the 1986 contract or overly broad.

The applicant and the respondent estate both brought motions under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules to question a non-party lawyer who had advised the applicant on a marriage contract over 30 years ago.

The non-party opposed the questioning, suggesting written interrogatories instead.

The court found that the three-part test for questioning a non-party was met, as the lawyer's evidence was crucial to the validity of the marriage contract and could not be easily obtained by other methods.

Given the lawyer's advanced age and the importance of his evidence, the court also ordered that the questioning be recorded to preserve the evidence for trial, analogous to Rule 36 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant sought costs of $34,160 on a full recovery basis against a third-party witness who unsuccessfully opposed a motion to be questioned prior to trial.

The third party argued he was a non-party and sought his own costs.

The court found the third party was a party for the purposes of the motion under the Family Law Rules and that the applicant was the successful party.

Applying principles of proportionality and considering the respective offers to settle, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $10,000.

This endorsement sets out the procedural parameters for costs submissions following a previous ruling on a motion for the preservation of witness evidence.

The parties and a non-party witness had resolved the procedural issues regarding the recording of the witness's evidence, making a further court appearance unnecessary.

The court directed that written costs submissions, limited to four pages exclusive of a bill of costs, must comply with Rule 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, with specific deadlines for delivery by the parties and the witness.

The applicant, Quickie Convenience Stores Corp., sought a declaration that the respondent, Parkland Fuel Corporation, unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment of various leases, subleases, and contracts to a prospective purchaser of Quickie's assets.

Quickie also sought a declaration releasing it from right of first offer obligations.

The court found that Parkland unreasonably withheld consent for the Ontario leases under s. 23(1) of the Commercial Tenancy Act, as it attempted to use the consent requirement to obtain benefits exceeding its contractual rights.

However, the court dismissed the application overall because it lacked jurisdiction over the Quebec leases governed by Quebec law and forum selection clauses, and the CTA did not apply to the credit/debit card contracts.

The court also declined to grant the requested release of obligations.

Following a successful motion by the respondent Estate to bifurcate the trial regarding the validity of a marriage contract, the Estate and the co-respondent sought costs.

The Estate claimed over $74,000 in partial indemnity costs, which the applicant argued was disproportionate.

The court agreed that the Estate's costs were excessive and disproportionate for a one-day motion, despite the high stakes and complexity.

The court fixed the Estate's costs at $35,000 and the co-respondent's costs at $2,500.

The respondent Estate brought a motion to bifurcate the proceeding, seeking a first trial on the validity of a Marriage Contract, separate from other issues including the applicant's claim to set aside the contract, elect equalization, and seek dependant relief.

The applicant opposed, arguing duplication of evidence and prejudice.

The court granted the bifurcation, finding it would lead to a more just, expeditious, and less expensive determination by potentially narrowing issues and promoting settlement, aligning with the culture shift emphasized in Hyrniak v. Mauldin.

This costs endorsement followed a successful motion by the plaintiff's solicitors, Victor Ages Vallance LLP (VAV), to assert a solicitor's lien and obtain a charging order over a $48,000 costs award owed to their client.

The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), a judgment creditor, opposed this relief and sought to garnish the funds, and subsequently requested to set off the costs awarded to VAV against an earlier costs award owed by the plaintiff to CPC.

The court awarded VAV partial indemnity costs for their successful motion, albeit reduced from their requested amount due to some over-lawyering.

The court denied CPC's request for set-off, reasoning that it would unfairly penalize the solicitors for asserting a valid right.

The plaintiff's solicitors, Victor Ages Vallance LLP (VAV), sought a declaration of a valid solicitor's lien and a charging order under section 34(1) of the Solicitors Act over $47,886 in costs awarded to the plaintiff.

These funds were held in trust by counsel for Arthur Hamilton and Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP.

The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), a creditor of the plaintiff, opposed the relief, asserting a garnishment notice and arguing for an equitable set-off.

The court found that the fund came into existence due to VAV's efforts, establishing a solicitor's lien with priority over garnishment.

The court rejected the equitable set-off argument due to a lack of mutuality of debts.

The charging order was granted, directing the funds to be paid to VAV.