Victoria Pileggi

Following a summary judgment motion where the defendants were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, the court reviewed the defendants' updated Costs Outline.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs fixed at $17,542.69, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, finding the amount fair and reasonable.

The appellants brought an application seeking public funding for Jewish day schools in Ontario, arguing that the failure to provide such funding violates their Charter rights.

Ontario successfully moved to strike the application on the basis that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Adler v. Ontario definitively resolved the issue.

On appeal, the appellants argued there was a reasonable prospect of revisiting Adler under the Bedford/Carter test due to new evidence of antisemitism and developments in international and constitutional law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the proposed new evidence did not fundamentally shift the parameters of the debate in Adler, and that s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 remains a comprehensive code for denominational school rights.

Following a summary judgment motion regarding a defaulted home purchase, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff had claimed $887,915 in damages but recovered only $10,000, with the claim for carrying costs proceeding to trial.

The court found that the defendants were entirely successful on the carrying costs issue and successful overall on the motion.

The court awarded the defendants their costs on a partial indemnity scale, directing them to submit a revised bill of costs.

The appellants abandoned their appeal on the eve of the hearing.

The decision addresses the issue of costs arising from the abandoned appeal.

The appellants argued against a costs award, citing an offer to settle.

The respondents, specifically the Estate of YYY and XXX, sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis, alleging the appeal constituted an abuse of process.

The court rejected both arguments, finding the offer to settle did not preclude a costs award and that the appeal, despite its procedural history, was not an abuse of process.

The respondents Estate of YYY and XXX were awarded $30,000 in all-inclusive costs from the appellants.

The applicant challenged her mother's 2015 will, alleging lack of knowledge and approval, lack of testamentary capacity, and suspicious circumstances.

The 2015 will divided the estate equally among the three children, whereas a previous 2013 will had left the majority of the estate to the applicant.

The court found no suspicious circumstances, preferring the evidence of the drafting solicitor and the deceased's family doctor over the retrospective analysis of the applicant's expert geriatric psychiatrist.

The court concluded the deceased had the necessary testamentary capacity and dismissed the application.