Timothy George Youdan

This costs decision follows a complex family law trial between Barbara Lang-Newlands and Ian Newlands.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, settlement offers, and relative success on issues, ultimately awarding the applicant, Barbara, $2,800,000 in costs.

The decision details the application of the Family Law Rules regarding offers to settle, the reasonableness of the parties’ behaviour, and the principles guiding costs awards in family law litigation.

The adult children of the parties brought a motion to be added as third parties to a long-standing family law application, asserting that their interests as discretionary beneficiaries in a family trust (Newlands Family Trust) could be prejudiced by decisions made at the upcoming trial.

The motion was filed on the eve of a six-week trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no compelling explanation for the significant delay in bringing the application, and noting the uncertainty regarding the children's standing and the prematurity of their purported cause of action, as discretionary beneficiaries do not possess a direct property interest in trust assets prior to appropriation.

The court emphasized that adding parties late in proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only when demonstrably necessary for the just determination of the litigation.

Costs were awarded against the moving parties.

The moving parties sought a stay of a Court of Appeal order pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The underlying dispute concerned whether estate files related to the estates of Bernard Sherman and Honey Sherman should remain sealed.

The application judge had ordered the files sealed for two years to protect privacy and safety interests.

The Court of Appeal reversed this order, finding that privacy interests were not properly considered at the first stage of the Sierra Club test and that any risk of harm was speculative.

The motion judge granted the stay, finding that the moving parties had met the test under section 65.1(2) of the Supreme Court Act and that all three factors for a stay were satisfied: a serious question to be determined, irreparable harm if the stay were refused, and a balance of convenience favouring the stay.

The appellant appealed an order sealing court files relating to the estates of Bernard and Honey Sherman, who were murdered in December 2017.

The motion judge had granted sealing orders ex parte, citing the need to protect the privacy and dignity of the victims and their loved ones, as well as concerns about the personal safety of estate beneficiaries and administrators.

The Court of Appeal set aside the sealing orders, finding that the respondents failed to meet the necessity threshold required for sealing orders.

The court held that personal privacy concerns alone cannot justify sealing, and that the evidence of risk to beneficiaries and administrators was speculative rather than based on concrete facts.

The Toronto Star and Kevin Donovan sought to unseal the estate files of Barry and Honey Sherman, who were murdered.

The estates, represented by their trustees, opposed this, citing privacy, dignity, and safety concerns for the victims' survivors due to the ongoing murder investigation and lack of known motive/perpetrator.

The court balanced the open court principle against these interests, finding that the respondents' privacy and security concerns outweighed the public interest in further disclosure of administrative estate details.

The court ordered the files sealed for an initial period of two years, with the possibility of renewal.