Sylvia Corthorn

The applicant, David Rossetti, sought a vesting order for property in Elizabethtown, Ontario, to be held by himself and Anthony Joseph Rossetti as tenants in common, each with a 50% interest.

The court addressed procedural issues regarding service and representation of several respondent estates and the inability to locate the trustee in bankruptcy for one co-owner.

The court granted the requested vesting order, finding the procedural requirements satisfied and the equities favouring the applicant, and ordered the land registry to be amended accordingly.

The successful appellant on a Small Claims Court appeal sought to settle the terms of the order.

The respondent argued that because the original costs award was under the $3,500 appeal limit set by O. Reg. 626/00, the appellant was still required to pay the $1,600 costs ordered at first instance despite winning the appeal.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, holding that when an appeal is allowed, the costs order below is set aside.

The regulatory appeal limit does not preserve a costs order when the underlying decision is overturned.

This case conference endorsement addresses the terms of an order following a successful motion by the plaintiffs to remove the defendants’ lawyers of record.

The parties could not agree on two terms: whether the order should specify that each defendant must be separately represented, and whether a deadline should be set for the defendants to retain new counsel.

The court held that the order should simply require separate representation, as per the original ruling, and declined to impose a deadline for retaining new counsel.

The endorsement also clarifies that the mechanism for representation of the Estate of Landino Zuccarini remains to be determined at a future hearing.

The Corporation of the City of Quinte West sought a declaration of abandonment and transfer of title for the Stone Church United Cemetery.

The court found that the cemetery lands were abandoned within the meaning of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, and granted the requested declaratory and ancillary relief to facilitate the transfer of ownership to the municipality.

The court also dispensed with the requirements for service and filing a factum, given the lack of opposition and the straightforward nature of the application.

The court dispensed with the requirement for litigation guardians residing in China to file affidavits in support of court approval motions for settlements involving parties under disability, due to legal and logistical barriers under Chinese law.

The decision reviews the collaborative resolution of liability and settlement issues following a major motor coach accident, the apportionment of limited insurance funds, and the purpose of the court approval process under Ontario law.

The court found that requiring affidavits would be disproportionate and unnecessary, and that the interests of justice are served by waiving the requirement.

The applicants, Dan Dunlap and Dunlap Law Professional Corporation, sought a charging order against settlement funds held in trust by Badre Law Professional Corporation for legal services provided to Carl Williams.

The court determined the principal amounts outstanding for four matters, but found that only the disbursements related to the personal injury matter were eligible for a charging order under the Solicitors Act.

The court granted a charging order for $857.20 plus interest at 3% per year, and dismissed the remainder of the application as statute-barred.

Costs were awarded only as previously ordered.

The court considered an application by Basil Basnandan for a declaration that the purchasers, Michael A. Jones and Delphina Mervin Leblanc, were in breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property, and for an order directing the broker, RE/MAX Hallmark Eyking Group Realty, to release the $200,000 deposit to him.

The purchasers failed to complete the transaction due to inability to secure financing.

The court found an anticipatory breach, held that Basnandan was entitled to terminate the agreement, and ordered the deposit released to him.

The court also addressed the commissioning of affidavit exhibits, the law of forfeiture and relief from forfeiture, and awarded partial indemnity costs to Basnandan.

The Corporation of the County of Prince Edward sought a declaration of ownership and a vesting order for MacDonald Street in Wellington, Ontario, a parcel of land with no registered owner.

The court found that the County had established ownership through decades of public expenditure and maintenance, as well as by-law dedication, and that the requirements for dedication and acceptance as a public highway were met.

The court also exercised its discretion to grant a vesting order, correcting the title to the subject lands.

This decision concerns the approval of a contingency fee retainer agreement, the reasonableness of solicitor-client accounts, and the management of settlement funds for plaintiffs under disability in a personal injury action.

The court reviews the proposed legal fees for both Stephen and Adriana Duffy, the structure of the settlement payments, and the adequacy of the arrangements for the management of funds, ultimately approving the proposals as reasonable and in the best interests of the parties.

The applicants, Raymond Laxton and his son Gregory Elliott Laxton, sought appointment as joint guardians of property and personal care for Josephine Margaret Laxton.

The court had previously appointed them as joint guardians of personal care and required further evidence regarding guardianship of property.

After reviewing updated evidence, including a capacity assessment and financial information, the court found Josephine incapable of managing property and appointed Raymond and Gregory as joint guardians of property.

The court dispensed with the requirement to post security, citing the prohibitive cost and the family’s close, trusting relationships.

The guardians were ordered to pass their accounts within the time frame recommended by the Public Guardian and Trustee.

Costs were awarded only to the PGT.

The court considered a motion to remove the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) as litigation guardian for Stephen Duffy, following a new capacity assessment that found him capable of managing property.

The court found the evidence insufficient to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that Stephen was no longer a party under disability within the meaning of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, and the PGT remains as litigation guardian.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion to remove the defendants' lawyers of record.

Both parties filed extensive written costs submissions that significantly exceeded the page limits and formatting requirements set out in the court's previous ruling.

Rather than rejecting the non-compliant materials or deciding the matter on the excessive written record, the court ordered that the issue of costs be resolved through a two-hour oral hearing.

The parties were prohibited from filing any further materials without leave of the court.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim and dismiss the action concerning the ownership and disposal of two mobile medical clinics.

The court found that the plaintiff lacked the legal capacity to bring the action because the clinics were owned by a numbered company in which the plaintiff held no official role.

Furthermore, the numbered company was an undischarged bankrupt and also lacked the capacity to sue, which could not be cured by substituting the company as the plaintiff.

Consequently, the court struck the statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend and dismissed the action.

The court considered costs following the resolution of four building permit appeals brought by Rothmar Holdings Inc. against the City of Cornwall.

After the City issued permits for all properties before the hearing, the parties argued only costs.

Rothmar sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging bad faith by the City, while the City sought partial indemnity costs or no costs.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding it inappropriate to investigate the merits, apply costs factors, or determine relative success in the absence of findings on the substantive issues.

The court also declined to award costs of a preliminary evidentiary motion.

The court considered a motion for summary judgment by the Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville regarding the status of a child, S.T., under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Society sought an order finding that S.T. was not in need of protection in relation to his father, M.T., and requested that M.T. be granted custody and sole decision-making responsibility, with the mother, B.W., to have limited parenting time.

The court reviewed the history of the Society’s involvement, the child’s circumstances, and the legal principles governing summary judgment and status review applications.

The court found that S.T. was not in need of protection regarding M.T., but continued to be in need of protection regarding B.W., and granted the relief sought by the Society.

The court fixes costs following the dismissal of Rachel Obita’s action against Algonquin College.

The College was wholly successful on a motion to strike, resulting in the dismissal of the action.

The College sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court reviewed the bill of costs, reduced certain amounts for work by articling students and a clerk, and fixed total costs payable by Ms. Obita at $35,515.00, plus $1,000 for the costs of the costs submissions.

The ruling discusses the principles for awarding costs, especially in cases involving self-represented litigants.

This decision concerns the approval of a pro-rata apportionment of insurance proceeds, legal fees, and disbursements among multiple plaintiffs in six related actions arising from a 2018 motor coach collision in Ontario involving Chinese tourists.

The court reviews the collaborative process among counsel, the narrowing of liability to two defendants, and the reasonableness of the proposed settlement distribution.

The court also addresses its jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the motion, and the process for future motions involving parties under disability.

The plaintiff, Ottawa-Carleton Mortgage Inc. (OCMI), brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for default under a mortgage.

The court found that the defendants had defaulted on their mortgage payments, failed to remedy the default, and did not provide any evidence in response to the motion.

OCMI was granted summary judgment for damages, vacant possession, and leave to issue a writ of possession.

The claims for pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs were adjourned for further determination.

The plaintiff sought damages for losses arising from the defendant’s failure to complete a real estate purchase.

The court found the plaintiff acted reasonably in re-listing and selling the property after the defendant’s breach, rejected the defence of failure to mitigate, and awarded damages and costs to the plaintiff.

The court also addressed the admissibility of evidence from the plaintiff’s real estate agent as a participant expert.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law dispute between self-represented parties regarding the best interests of two children, focusing on parenting time, decision-making, and child support.

The court reviews the parties' history, the impact of conflict on the children, and the application of the Divorce Act and Child Support Guidelines.

The court orders a detailed parenting and support arrangement, emphasizing the need to minimize parental conflict and prioritize the children's well-being.