Susan E. Healey

The court issued supplementary reasons on consent of the parties to amend paragraph 246 of the original trial decision.

The amended order declares the life insurance certificates in full force and effect, dismisses the defendants' counterclaim, and orders the defendants to pay the plaintiff $8,543.82 for mortgage payments, the full balance of the mortgage, $10,000 in mental distress damages, and $150,000 in punitive damages.

Following a successful trial where the plaintiff was awarded coverage under two creditor protection insurance policies, mental distress damages, and punitive damages, the court determined the costs of the action.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date the defendants' amended counterclaim was ordered to issue, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter due to the defendants' reprehensible litigation conduct, unproven allegations of fraud, and failure to accept a reasonable offer to settle.

The plaintiff was awarded $260,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

On a Crown application in a judge-alone criminal proceeding, the court admitted each complainant's evidence as similar fact evidence on the other counts arising from allegations of sexual abuse within a household involving three sisters.

Applying the governing similar fact framework, the court found an air of reality to innocent collusion because of family discussions, but concluded on a balance of probabilities that the evidence was not tainted by collusion.

The court held that the circumstances of the allegations disclosed a persuasive degree of connection across counts, particularly the shared family setting, opportunity, relationship of trust, and broadly similar pattern of sexualized conduct.

The probative value of the evidence on actus reus, credibility, and reliability significantly outweighed the low risk of moral or reasoning prejudice in a judge-alone trial.

The court issued a costs endorsement following motions regarding supervised parenting time.

The applicants, the mother and maternal grandmothers, were largely successful in their request to have family members supervise contact with the child, rather than a professional service.

The respondent father took an unreasonable position in insisting on professional supervision and arbitrarily cutting off contact with the grandmothers.

The court awarded costs of $8,500 to the mother and $10,000 to the grandmothers, payable by the father.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a compliance order under the Condominium Act against the owner and occupants of a unit due to escalating, threatening, and harassing behaviour by the occupants.

The occupants, who were the daughter and granddaughter of the owner, engaged in conduct including death threats, racial slurs, and excessive noise, causing fear among residents and staff.

The court found the occupants violated section 117 of the Act and the condominium's rules.

Given the severity of the conduct and failure to alter behaviour despite warnings, the court ordered the occupants to vacate the unit within 30 days and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to enforce a prior order for in-person supervised contact with his two children.

The respondent mother opposed, citing extreme distress and self-harm attempts by the older child when faced with the prospect of seeing the father.

The court declined to order police enforcement, finding it unwise given the child's distress.

Instead, the court ordered a structured plan involving the Office of the Children's Lawyer or the court-approved supervisors to inform the children of the supervision terms and ascertain their willingness to attend, with virtual contact ordered if they remain adamant against in-person visits.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice due to delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The action arose from an alleged assault at a festival in 2015.

The court considered the severe backlog of civil jury trials in the Central East Region and the prejudice to the plaintiff from open-ended delay.

The court provisionally struck the jury notice and ordered the matter placed on the non-jury trial list for the May 2021 sittings, with leave for the defendants to move to restore the jury notice if the matter is not reached.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendant's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant argued the agreement was void due to misrepresentations about conservation authority restrictions and that she was not personally liable because she signed 'in trust' for a corporation.

The court found that the issue of misrepresentation required a trial due to the risk of inconsistent findings with related third-party claims.

However, the court granted partial summary judgment on two discrete issues, finding that the defendant would be personally liable if the agreement is enforceable, and quantifying the plaintiff's damages at $381,984.02.

The appellant, Timothy Byers, appealed convictions from 2014.

The appeal was case-managed due to persistent delays.

The Crown brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with court-ordered timelines for filing materials.

The appellant sought an adjournment, citing COVID-19 restrictions and recent retention of counsel, but the court found these excuses lacked merit and were an attempt to manipulate the process.

Applying the factors from R. v. Villanti, the court considered the extraordinary five-year delay, the appellant's conduct, and the Crown's diligence.

The court granted the Crown's motion, dismissing the appeal due to the appellant's persistent non-compliance and manipulation, emphasizing the importance of respecting court orders and the principle that "inaction has its price."

During a trial for assault and assault with a weapon, the Crown moved to amend the indictment to substitute 'a female person' for the named victim, as the Crown's lay witnesses could not identify the victim by name and police hearsay evidence was excluded.

The court initially granted the motion, finding no prejudice to the accused's ability to meet the case.

However, after the accused and the named victim testified for the defence, firmly establishing her identity, the court reversed its ruling to avoid confusing the jury.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims for intrusion upon seclusion and all claims against the individual defendant lawyer, Costantino.

The plaintiffs cross-moved to amend their Statement of Claim to add new defendants and causes of action for breach of confidence and Human Rights Code violations.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to plead the necessary elements for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, as the disclosure of a witness list in a quasi-judicial proceeding was legally justified and not highly offensive.

The court struck the privacy claims and dismissed the action against the lawyer, finding she owed no duty of care to the opposing party's witness and her actions were protected by absolute privilege.

The plaintiffs' motion to amend was dismissed as the proposed claims were doomed to fail.

The defendant successfully moved to set aside a default judgment obtained by his former spouse on a crossclaim, as he had never been served.

He sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to her unreasonable conduct in refusing to consent to the motion despite having no proof of service.

The court found the responding party's conduct egregious and awarded costs partially on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $6,835.

This decision addresses costs following a 17-day trial involving two consolidated actions: a construction lien action and a debt recovery action.

The court awarded costs to Kalogon Spar Ltd. and Dino Coliviras, fixing the amount at $190,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable from a standby letter of credit.

The court declined to apply Rule 49 cost consequences due to insufficient evidence from Kalogon regarding costs incurred at the time of settlement offers.

The court considered various factors, including the parties' conduct, the complexity of the proceedings, and the proportionality of the award, noting that both parties displayed inflexibility and Kalogon's principal failed to keep proper records, which significantly increased litigation costs.

The applicant, Jahson Sanderson, brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on a charge of robbery under s.343(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Crown failed to establish the requisite link between the violence or threat of violence and the purpose of the theft.

The evidence indicated that any violence or threats were not for the purpose of extorting the vehicle or preventing/overcoming resistance to its stealing, but rather for other purposes or as an impulsive act.

This endorsement addresses the costs following a four-day trial where the plaintiff, Infinity Construction Inc., was completely successful, obtaining judgment for over $1.19 million plus interest.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the defendants' deliberate withholding of known owed funds was vexatious and tactical.

The defendants argued for partial indemnity costs, disputing the plaintiff's hours and the applicability of Rule 49.10.

The court found that Rule 49.10 was not engaged as the plaintiff's offer was not made seven days before trial.

While the defendants' conduct in withholding payment came close to reprehensible conduct, it did not meet the high threshold required for substantial indemnity costs in these circumstances.

Exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, the court found the plaintiff's counsel's fees reasonable and awarded the plaintiff $175,000 inclusive of HST on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought temporary child support and s. 7 expenses for one child.

The motion was dismissed as the court found that a temporary order for child support was premature given the ongoing litigation, potential historical underpayments by the applicant, and the imminent trial where all income and retroactive support issues would be determined.

The request for s. 7 expenses was also denied due to insufficient financial disclosure and lack of evidence regarding the expense and available insurance coverage.

Costs were awarded against the applicant for bringing an unnecessary motion.

The defendant, Canadian National Railway Company, brought a motion to consolidate actions involving the plaintiff, Rose Sgambelluri, and two insurance companies.

The plaintiff conceded that the "gateway criteria" for consolidation under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure were met.

The court granted the motion, finding that consolidation would prevent inconsistent outcomes, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and promote judicial economy, with no true prejudice or delay to the plaintiff.

Costs of the motion were fixed against the plaintiff.

The parties sought costs following motions primarily concerning financial disclosure and an accounting of children's education funds.

The court noted the long history of the hard-fought case and the difficulty in evaluating success, as both parties took unreasonable positions on certain issues.

The court reserved the costs of the respondent's disclosure motion to the trial judge, who would be best positioned to assess its necessity.

However, the court awarded the applicant modest costs of $750 for his successful cross-motion to obtain an accounting of the education funds.

The applicant sought costs following a successful family law trial where the court terminated the respondent's access to the children and awarded retroactive child support.

The respondent failed to file written costs submissions despite being granted extensions.

The court found that while the respondent's desire to pursue access did not warrant full recovery costs, his unreasonable conduct, including denying criminal convictions and failing to produce financial disclosure, lengthened the trial.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $14,000.

The parties engaged in a dispute over the renovation of a residential property.

The plaintiff contractor claimed unpaid amounts for construction work, alleging an oral agreement for project management and general contracting.

The defendant homeowners alleged the project was a joint venture to flip the property and claimed damages for incomplete and deficient work, as well as unpaid loans.

The court found no enforceable contract or joint venture existed due to a lack of certainty of terms.

The court applied quantum meruit, valuing the work performed by the contractor and deducting the cost of proven deficiencies.

The court ordered the homeowners to pay the remaining balance to the contractor.