Veronica Chih Chiao Tsou

This is a costs endorsement following an application decision that determined dog ownership.

The court addressed the proportionality of legal costs, noting that both parties incurred excessive fees (over $265,000 collectively) for a non-monetary issue.

Despite the applicant's success in the underlying application, the court found the requested costs disproportionate and awarded partial indemnity costs of $83,570, significantly less than the $129,345.90 partial indemnity sought by the applicant, and less than the respondent's offer to pay for the dog.

The appellant, Aliesha Verma, brought a motion to stay an order of Stewart J. pending appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The underlying order declared that a dog, Rocco Jr., was owned by the deceased Leonard Carvalho and formed part of his estate, ordering Ms. Verma to return the dog to the estate trustee.

The motions judge applied the three-part test for a stay from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General): serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.

The court found that the grounds of appeal had little prospect of success, that Ms. Verma failed to establish irreparable harm related to the denial of the stay, and that the balance of convenience favoured the estate trustee due to Ms. Verma's past conduct and social media campaign.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding party.

This appeal concerned the interpretation and application of termination provisions in a lease agreement for solar panels.

The appellants (homeowners) purported to terminate the lease and redirect payments from the Local Distribution Company (LDC) to themselves, leading the respondent (Grasshopper Solar Corporation) to sue for breach of contract.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for Grasshopper, finding the appellants in breach, and awarded equitable damages based on a non-contractual buy-out formula.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the summary judgment, affirming the appellants' breach, but allowed the appeal on damages, finding the motion judge erred by imposing a buy-out not rooted in the lease.

The Court ordered the appellants to repay the wrongfully redirected LDC payments and ruled that the solar equipment was abandoned by Grasshopper, with encumbrances to be removed.