Stephen McCotter

Following a successful motion by the estate trustee to set aside $100,000 from an estate for anticipated legal fees, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party sought over $10,000 in costs, which the responding party argued were excessive.

The court applied the reasonableness principles under the Family Law Rules and reduced the claimed fees, disallowing a substantial Westlaw research disbursement due to lack of evidence that it represented a proper out‑of‑pocket expense.

The court awarded a reduced lump sum costs amount and ordered that payment be deferred until the proceeding is finally resolved.

The decision also clarifies that a losing party is not required to file a bill of costs when challenging the opposing party’s claim.

An estate trustee brought a motion seeking authorization to set aside estate funds to pay anticipated legal fees incurred in defending a surviving spouse’s claim for equalization of net family property.

The respondent argued that the trustee should personally fund the litigation because he was also a beneficiary and the estate assets might be insufficient to satisfy a potential equalization payment.

The court reaffirmed the long‑standing principle that trustees are entitled to indemnification from estate assets for reasonably incurred legal expenses in the administration and defence of the estate, including litigation expenses.

The existence of a co‑existing interest as beneficiary did not defeat the trustee’s right to indemnity.

The court authorized $100,000 to be set aside from the estate for legal fees subject to oversight and without prejudice to the respondent’s right to challenge reimbursement at trial.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and evicting them for committing an illegal act (breach of zoning by-law).

The Divisional Court found the Board erred by reversing the onus of proof regarding the zoning issue when there was no evidence the cabin was in the prohibited zone.

Furthermore, the Board erred in law by failing to dismiss the eviction application under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court found the eviction application was brought because the tenants had successfully enforced their legal rights to resist an illegal rent increase, which mandates refusal of the eviction regardless of the landlord's good or bad faith.

The appeal was allowed and the eviction application dismissed.

The applicant estate trustee brought a motion to dismiss the family law proceeding for delay.

The respondent surviving spouse brought a cross-motion to suspend the administration of the estate to preserve assets for a potential equalization payment.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for a trial of an issue, finding the motion straightforward.

The court dismissed the motion for delay, noting that both parties contributed to the delay and there was no substantial risk to a fair trial.

The court granted the respondent's motion, ordering the estate to retain $2.2 million to secure her potential equalization claim, which included a potential interest in a $6.6 million settlement from a Florida lawsuit.

Following a prior costs endorsement, self-represented respondents sought leave to file a reply and requested reconsideration of the court’s costs determination.

The underlying application sought a declaration regarding the validity of several leases and had been dismissed, resulting in success for the respondents.

The self-represented respondents argued they should receive compensation for time spent preparing and attending the proceeding.

Applying Rule 57.04(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles in Fong v. Chan, the court held that costs for self-represented litigants are only appropriate where the work performed is equivalent to that ordinarily done by counsel.

The court found the respondents’ activities did not meet that threshold and declined to alter the previous costs award.

The applicants purchased a campsite property and subsequently sought to significantly increase the rent for several cabin owners who leased land on the site.

When the cabin owners challenged the increase at the Landlord and Tenant Board, the applicants brought an application to the Superior Court seeking to declare the leases null and void and to evict the respondents, arguing the leases violated the Planning Act and the Statute of Frauds.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the cabins were residential units within a land lease community under the Residential Tenancies Act, and therefore the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters regarding the termination of the tenancies.