Tracey J. Nieckarz

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of his judicial review and appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment to February 28, 2024, on peremptory terms.

The applicant was ordered to pay $500 in costs thrown away and to pay $5,000 into court pending further order.

Failure to make these payments would allow the respondent to move to quash the proceedings.

The appellant, a municipal councillor and later mayor, appealed a decision finding he contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by attempting to influence the location of a municipal project near his commercial property.

The application judge ordered his removal from office and a two-year disqualification.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the Integrity Commissioner's jurisdiction, the finding of a pecuniary interest, the admission of expert evidence, the penalty, and the costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable errors in the application judge's objective assessment of the conflict, her reliance on the expert valuation report, or her discretionary decisions on penalty and costs.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision granting the Near North Enviro-Education Centre a property tax exemption under s. 3(1)5 of the Assessment Act as an 'educational seminary of learning'.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in interpreting the exemption and applying the 'primary purpose' test by focusing on the institution rather than the actual use of the land, and by ignoring traditional indicia of a seminary of learning.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly applied the primary purpose test and the Keewaydin factors, and reasonably concluded that the institution's primary purpose, as reflected by its use of the land for environmental education in a rural community, qualified for the exemption.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a defamation action commenced by a drag performer and a 2SLGBTQI organization.

The action arose from a Facebook post by the defendant that referred to the plaintiffs as 'groomers' in the context of a drag story-time event.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the expression did not relate to a matter of public interest, but rather perpetuated harmful myths and stereotypes about the 2SLGBTQI community.

The court further held that the defamation claim had substantial merit, the defence of fair comment had no real prospect of success, and the public interest in allowing the plaintiffs to defend their reputations outweighed any public interest in protecting the expression.

The applicants brought a motion for penalties arising from the respondent's ongoing contempt of an order requiring him to pass estate accounts.

The respondent brought a cross-motion under Rule 59.06(2) to vary a previous order requiring him to account as attorney for property, arguing he never acted in that capacity.

The respondent's counsel also moved to be removed from the record.

The court granted the motion to remove counsel, found the respondent in ongoing contempt, imposed a $750 fine, and ordered him to purge his contempt within 60 days.

The court deferred a final decision on the Rule 59.06(2) motion, instead ordering the respondent to account for specific transactions in the deceased's joint bank accounts.

The defendant in an estate proceeding brought a motion to find the self-represented plaintiff in contempt of a prior court order.

The prior order prohibited the plaintiff from threatening criminal proceedings against the defendant or witnesses in exchange for monetary settlement.

The plaintiff subsequently threatened to report the defendant to the CRA fraud informant program if he did not pay her a specified sum.

The court found that while the plaintiff's conduct violated the spirit of the order and could justify a contempt finding, it would instead adjourn the motion and issue a 'last chance' order warning that further threats could result in the dismissal of her proceeding or a formal contempt finding.

The applicant, Robert’s Plumbing & Sheet Metal Co., brought a motion to strike the Statement of Defence of the corporate respondent, 2844683 Ontario Inc. o/a Gallucci’s Pizza, for non-compliance with Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires corporate parties to be represented by a lawyer or obtain leave.

The respondent, represented by its sole officer and director who is not a lawyer, failed to comply despite requests and did not appear at the motion.

The court, applying principles from caselaw, determined that while striking a pleading for non-compliance should only occur in the interests of justice, a "last chance" order was appropriate.

The court ordered the respondent to retain a lawyer or bring a motion for leave within 30 days, failing which the Statement of Defence would be struck without further notice, leading to default judgment.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff was successful in dismissing the defendant's second motion for leave to be represented by an individual.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $2,892.80.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 and awarded the plaintiff $2,000 inclusive, noting the motion required less extensive preparation than the first motion.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from the Plaintiff's motion for particulars and the Defendants' motion to compel cross-examination.

The motion for particulars was resolved on consent, with the Plaintiff ultimately obtaining clarity on the scope of serious allegations made against him in the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim.

The court found the Defendants' conduct necessitated the motion for particulars and awarded the Plaintiff $7,500 in costs.

Regarding the cross-examination motion, the court found divided success, noting that while cross-examination occurred, its scope exceeded the court's order and provided limited assistance to the particulars motion.

Consequently, no costs were awarded for the cross-examination motion.

This motion for judgment sought to enforce an alleged settlement agreement in two related estate litigation actions concerning the estate of Beatrice Labrash.

The first action involved the Estate seeking to recover real property transferred to the deceased's son, Grant Labrash, by right of survivorship.

The second action was a challenge by Grant to the validity of the deceased's 2010 Will.

The court found that a settlement was reached between Grant and Derrick Lamarche, in his personal capacity and as Estate Trustee of Beatrice's Estate.

However, the settlement's enforceability was complicated by a crucial term involving the sale of a property (20 Park Crescent) that had been transferred to Hellan Lamarche personally and subsequently to her Estate Trustees (Derrick, Bradley Lamarche, and Annette Fishwick).

The court could not find that Bradley and Annette, who were not parties to the litigation and not clients of Derrick's counsel, had agreed to the settlement.

Consequently, the motion for judgment was denied without prejudice, allowing the moving party to seek further submissions on the court's authority to bind Hellan's Estate to the settlement.

This addendum to a trial judgment addresses unresolved parenting time arrangements for two young children following the mother's approved relocation from Marathon to Espanola, ON.

The court considered the father's request for a weekly monthly schedule and the mother's proposal for a 4-5 day monthly schedule, balancing the children's need for frequent contact with the father against the challenges of long-distance travel and school attendance.

The court ordered a five-day monthly parenting schedule, to be arranged around statutory holidays or PD days to minimize missed school.

It also determined specific holiday parenting time, including summer and March Break, and clarified exchange locations and communication methods.

The applicant sought a further adjournment of his motion to terminate a support order, citing a need for legal advice.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, seeking to proceed and requesting the continuation of a previous order staying enforcement of support, and the payment of child support by the applicant.

The court granted a peremptory adjournment to the applicant, terminated the respondent's child support obligation to the applicant, and ordered the applicant to pay temporary child support to the respondent.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment seeking approximately $936,000 in damages for alleged breach of contract.

The court raised several concerns, including a significant discrepancy between the amount claimed in the motion and the estimated damages in the statement of claim, the lack of a clear contractual basis for the claimed lost opportunities, and the plaintiff's failure to properly prove damages by not accounting for costs.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to re-file with further and better evidence.

This endorsement addresses costs for two motions: John James's motion to remove Lory James as Estate Trustee and appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL), and Lory James and Glacier Trading Corporation's motion to strike John's counterclaim.

The court previously granted the appointment of an ETDL and dismissed the motion to strike the counterclaim.

The court determined that costs should be fixed immediately rather than reserved for trial, emphasizing the "loser pays" principle in estate litigation.

John James was deemed the overall successful party on his motion, and entirely successful on the motion to strike.

The court awarded John James $10,000 in costs against Lory James personally for his motion, and $5,500 jointly and severally against Lory James and Glacier Trading Corporation for their unsuccessful motion to strike.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for an order to preserve real property under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, pending a forfeiture application.

The property was alleged to be an instrument of unlawful activity, specifically a location for illegal drug sales.

The self-represented respondent sought multiple adjournments but failed to file responding materials.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the property was an instrument of unlawful activity based on police evidence of drug trafficking and granted the preservation order.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a successful motion by the defendant to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim and the dismissal of the plaintiff's cross-motion for judgment.

The defendant sought costs of $8,065.60 on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented plaintiff argued against any costs award.

The court, applying the principles of reasonableness and considering the factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure, awarded the defendant $5,000 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, finding the defendant was the successful party and the plaintiff's pleading was significantly deficient.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the Applicant (Father) successfully compelled the Respondent (Mother) to ensure the child's consistent attendance at school and activities.

The Father sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing he was the successful party and that his offer to settle met Rule 18 requirements.

The Mother argued for no costs or costs in the cause, citing divided success and issues with the Father's offer and bill of costs.

The court found the Father was the successful party on the primary issue but denied substantial indemnity costs, concluding the offer to settle did not sufficiently meet Rule 18 criteria and noting issues with the proportionality and breakdown of the Father's claimed costs.

The Mother was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs to the Father.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, defamation, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches by the police, claiming he was harassed and defamed, leading to his termination from employment.

The court found the pleading remained devoid of material facts, relied on speculation, and failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The claim was struck in its entirety, with costs awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis, and leave to amend requiring a further motion.

The Respondent (Mother) sought full recovery costs after an eight-day trial, arguing the Applicant (Father) engaged in vexatious and bad faith conduct, and that her offers to settle were more favourable than the trial outcome.

The Applicant conceded the Respondent was entitled to costs but disputed the quantum and denied bad faith.

The court found the Applicant's conduct unreasonable but not amounting to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, thus not triggering full recovery costs.

However, considering the Applicant's unreasonable behaviour, disregard for court orders, and delays caused, the court awarded the Respondent $70,000 in costs, a significant amount but less than sought, balancing proportionality and the importance of the issues.

This case involved married spouses who separated and had two children.

The court addressed remaining issues after a partial settlement, including parenting arrangements, spousal support, and child support.

The court ordered shared parenting with preferential time allocated to the Mother, while denying the Mother's request to relocate with the children.

Income was imputed to the Mother for support purposes, and the Father was ordered to pay spousal support and ongoing child support with retroactive adjustments.