Sylvia Corthorn

The applicant sought relief regarding title to property and a right of way, which involved the estate of a deceased person.

The court addressed preliminary issues concerning insufficient notice to the deceased's grandchildren and the lack of a representative for the respondent estate.

The application was adjourned, and the applicant was directed to provide clearer, more comprehensive notice to the grandchildren, offer to cover legal advice expenses, and make further efforts to locate all beneficiaries.

The court declined to allow the proceeding to continue without an estate representative at this stage due to evidentiary deficiencies and the need for proper representation of the estate's interests.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for particulars and an extension of time to deliver a reply, achieving mixed success.

The court ordered the defendant to provide one critical particular regarding the value of a contract, while dismissing the other requests.

The parties could not agree on costs.

Given the mixed success and the early stage of the case-managed action, the court ordered that the costs of the motion be payable in the cause.

The plaintiffs were awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis following their successful motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence and note him in default.

The court found the defendant's conduct, including flagrant and intentional breaches of court orders and systematic flouting of the judicial system, justified substantial indemnity costs, even without an offer to settle.

The court fixed fees at $36,934.20 and reduced disbursements to $1,600, for a total award of $43,335.

Michelle Connolly applied to be appointed guardian of property for her adult son, Michael Taylor Connolly ("Taylor"), who was injured in a pedestrian vehicle accident in 2003 and is incapable of managing his property.

The court had previously found Taylor incapable and Michelle suitable, but required further evidence on the management plan for his significant settlement assets.

After hearing expert evidence from BMO Nesbitt Burns, the court approved Michelle's management plan, which involved investing the net settlement funds in a conservatively managed portfolio rather than a structured settlement, citing flexibility and protection against inflation as key benefits for Taylor's long-term needs.

The court also dispensed with the requirement for a security bond at this stage.

This costs endorsement followed a successful motion by the defendant regarding discovery issues.

The defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, initially claiming $3,816.92.

The plaintiff argued for nil costs, citing unfairness due to a late-served affidavit and the defendant's partial lack of success on one question, and also requested delayed payment due to a SABS settlement.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments for nil costs, finding the defendant's late affidavit was properly admitted.

The court adjusted the defendant's claimed fees due to redacted dockets and reduced the student's hourly rate, ultimately fixing costs at $2,995.

The court also upheld the original decision for delayed payment of costs until the final resolution of the action, noting that the costs would bear interest.

The plaintiff, by her litigation guardian, sought court approval of a settlement with Economical Mutual Insurance Company, which involved dismissing the bad faith claim against Economical without costs.

The motion also sought a sealing order for the motion materials and approval of counsel's disbursements.

The court approved the settlement and the majority of the disbursements, finding the settlement reasonable and in the plaintiff's best interests given the risks of litigation.

However, the request for a sealing order was dismissed on procedural grounds, with leave for the plaintiff to re-bring it in open court.

The defendants, Medtronic, brought a motion for an interim confidentiality order regarding disclosed documents and information.

The proposed order was based on a precedent from a class action, but the current case was not a class action.

The court raised several concerns, including the lack of evidence of service on co-defendants, the applicability of class action-specific clauses to a non-class action, potential redundancy of certain paragraphs, and minor formatting errors.

The judge refused to grant the order in its proposed form and required the motion to be brought back to open court for further submissions to address these issues.

The applicant and respondents, who are brothers, are involved in a dispute over the management of their mother's property and competing powers of attorney.

A fourth brother, who is not a party to the application, brought a motion for intervenor status and interim financial assistance, arguing he relied on his mother for financial support and housing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed intervenor had no legal interest in the subject matter of the application, would not be adversely affected by its outcome, and shared no common questions of law or fact.

Furthermore, adding him as a party two weeks before the scheduled hearing would cause undue delay and prejudice.

The request for interim financial assistance was also dismissed, with costs awarded against the proposed intervenor but deferred against his potential inheritance.

The plaintiff's lawyer brought a motion seeking an order declaring the plaintiff, Zeljko Milicevic, a "person under disability" within the meaning of the Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as his litigation guardian.

The action stemmed from an incident in 2005 involving the Ottawa Police Service.

The court considered medical evidence, including psychiatrist reports detailing Mr. Milicevic's continuous delusional disorder, despite procedural deficiencies in how this expert evidence was presented.

Applying a liberal interpretation of the Rules, the court found Mr. Milicevic to be a person under disability due to his mental incapacity related to the proceeding and that no other suitable litigation guardian was available.

The motion was granted, and the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as litigation guardian.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully responding to the defendants' unsuccessful motion for summary judgment.

The defendants argued for partial indemnity costs of $10,000.

The court found that while the defendants acted unreasonably in bringing their motion, the plaintiff's own evidence had deficiencies and they abandoned their request for summary judgment in their favour.

Consequently, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $21,966.36, after adjusting hourly rates, percentages, and disallowing certain disbursements.

No costs were awarded for the costs submissions due to deficiencies in both parties' filings.

The plaintiffs, successful in their negligence claims but found 40% contributorily negligent, sought substantial indemnity costs from the defendants following an oil spill.

The court determined the appropriate hourly rates for counsel, disallowed fees for redacted dockets and administrative tasks, and reduced disbursements due to insufficient detail.

The plaintiffs' offer to settle triggered substantial indemnity costs from June 9, 2016, forward.

The court fixed the plaintiffs' total costs at $175,000, with Ultramar Ltd. being entirely responsible but entitled to recover 50% from Kilpatrick Fuels Limited and Joe Burns on its crossclaim.

The court addressed an application to determine the date of separation and the validity of a separation agreement.

Both parties sought to set aside portions of the agreement, specifically the stipulated separation date and the valuation of the matrimonial home.

The court objectively analyzed the parties' conduct and found the actual date of separation to be August 31, 2011, thereby setting aside the corresponding term in the agreement.

The decision on the matrimonial home valuation was deferred, allowing for further evidence and potential settlement.

The applicant sought to change a final order regarding access to his five-year-old daughter, requesting immediate full-day unsupervised access.

The respondent opposed due to concerns about the applicant's alcohol use and parenting skills, proposing supervised access.

The court ordered a graduated resumption of access, starting with four hours weekly, increasing over time, with initial 30-minute supervision by the respondent at drop-off, and all visits to occur in a public place without the applicant driving the child.

The court emphasized the child's best interests and the applicant's past conduct.

The plaintiffs sought court approval for a settlement reached on behalf of minor plaintiffs and for a contingency fee retainer agreement.

The court denied approval of the retainer agreement due to non-compliance with the Solicitors Act and the Contingency Fee Agreements Regulation, citing issues with alternative fee calculation methods and formal deficiencies.

While the gross settlement for minors was deemed reasonable, final approval was withheld pending a compliant retainer agreement or fee-for-service proposal, and evidence regarding the management of minor plaintiffs' settlement funds.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking particulars of allegations in the defendant's statement of defence and an extension of time to deliver a reply.

The defendant argued that pleadings were closed and that an affidavit was required to support the demand for particulars.

The court found that a demand for particulars could be made regardless of the status of pleadings and that an affidavit was not required if the allegations were "general and bald." The court ordered the defendant to provide particulars regarding the value of the contract (paragraph 9 of the statement of defence) as it was deemed a material fact and a "general and bald" denial.

However, the court denied the demand for particulars for the remaining ten allegations, finding them sufficiently detailed or within the plaintiffs' knowledge, and that an affidavit was necessary for those.

The plaintiffs were granted an extension to deliver their reply.

This endorsement from a trial management conference addresses ongoing issues in consolidated actions, including delays in expert report completion by Welch LLP and concerns regarding the capacity of individual litigants, John McMurtry and Mildred McMurtry, to testify.

The court ordered Welch LLP to attend a continuation of the conference to provide a status update and set new deadlines, and noted a motion for a litigation guardian for John McMurtry was scheduled.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's pleading and note him in default due to his repeated breaches of interlocutory orders and failure to pay costs in the current action and related estate proceedings.

The court found that the defendant demonstrated utter disregard for court orders and systematically flouted them for personal advantage.

The motion was granted, striking the defendant's defence and noting him in default, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed to an uncontested trial for damages.

The accused, Maurice Landriault, faced charges of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

In pre-trial applications, the court addressed the classification and disclosure of first and third-party records related to a Crown witness's criminal record, the voluntariness of the accused's statement to police, and alleged Charter breaches (ss. 7, 8, 10(a), 10(b)).

The court found that records related to the Crown witness's criminal history were first-party records requiring Crown disclosure.

It also determined that the accused's statements to police were involuntary due to a significant change in jeopardy and the failure to re-caution and re-advise of the right to counsel.

Consequently, the accused's Charter rights under ss. 7, 10(a), 10(b) were breached, and the search of his recording device breached s. 8.

The court excluded the entirety of the accused's interview and the replaying of his recording from evidence at trial under both the common law confessions rule and s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The plaintiff, Truestar Investments Ltd., was entirely successful in its action, including a motion for summary judgment, which resulted in the setting aside of fraudulent property transfers.

This endorsement addresses the plaintiff's request for partial indemnity costs.

The defendant, Iris Baer, did not dispute Truestar's entitlement to costs but challenged the quantum.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the complexity of the matter, the importance of the issues (recovering assets for creditors in a related bankruptcy), and the conduct of the defendant.

Specifically, Baer's late introduction of an argument necessitated two separate appearances for the summary judgment motion, increasing Truestar's costs.

The court found Truestar's counsel's hourly rates and docketed time reasonable, especially given the senior counsel's experience and the additional work required as the moving party.

The court fixed Truestar's partial indemnity costs at $28,900, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, and awarded an additional $1,750 for costs submissions.

This addendum to a ruling addresses the approval of a contingency fee retainer agreement for the main action in a personal injury litigation.

The court re-evaluated whether "exceptional circumstances" existed in 2011, when the fee agreement was initially made, to justify a contingency fee of 25% plus costs recovered from the opposing party, as per s. 28.1(8) of the Solicitors Act.

The decision considers the complexity of the claim, the substantial financial risk assumed by counsel, the significance of the litigation to the clients, and the resources expended.

The court ultimately approved the agreement for the main action, finding that exceptional circumstances were present.