William Friedman

The appellant, a father, appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his mortgage action against his son and daughter-in-law.

The trial judge had found the mortgage unenforceable on three grounds: duress, sham, and failure to prove advances.

The Court of Appeal reversed on the first two grounds, finding no duress and that the mortgage was not a sham.

However, the Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the father failed to prove that funds advanced through a company were made under the mortgage, as opposed to being income to the son.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion requesting the court refuse to hear the appellant's appeal due to his failure to comply with trial orders regarding spousal support and security.

The Court of Appeal held that where an appellant wishes to be relieved of trial obligations pending appeal, the proper approach is to bring a stay motion.

The court adjourned the appeal, ordering that it would not be heard until the appellant paid the support arrears and posted the required security.

Following the dismissal of the Crown's appeal from costs ordered against it in forfeiture proceedings under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the respondents sought costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal declined to award costs, noting that costs are generally not awarded against the Crown in criminal proceedings absent a Charter infringement, serious Crown misconduct, or exceptional circumstances.

The court found no serious misconduct by the Crown on the appeal itself, and no exceptional circumstances justifying a costs award.

Furthermore, the court noted that section 683 of the Criminal Code precludes a costs award on the appeal.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a dismissed summary judgment motion brought by the defendant, Klein-Rose Homes Inc., under the Construction Lien Act.

The court applied section 86 of the CLA, which grants broad discretion in awarding costs in construction lien proceedings, and considered the Rules of Civil Procedure where not inconsistent.

The plaintiff, Allcon Concrete & Haulage Ltd., was the successful party on the underlying motion and sought costs.

The court fixed costs at $26,560 for the plaintiff, payable upon the plaintiff's success at trial or a subsequent summary judgment motion in proving the validity of its claim for lien, irrespective of the full success on the contract claim or defense against the counterclaim.

The court rejected the defendant's argument to reserve costs to the trial judge and the plaintiff's assertion of the defendant's "unduly aggressive and unreasonable" conduct.

The Crown appealed a nearly $1 million costs award made against it after its unsuccessful application to forfeit two properties under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The application judge found the Crown's conduct, including pursuing a meritless application against innocent third parties and taking an intransigent attitude, amounted to a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable standards.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Ontario Court of Justice has an implied power to award costs in CDSA forfeiture applications, the correct standard was applied, and the quantum of costs was reasonable.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which had set aside a Hearing Panel's dismissal of professional misconduct complaints related to mortgage transactions.

The Appeal Panel found the Hearing Panel erred in law by incorrectly defining fraud and by concluding a lawyer need not disclose material facts if they reasonably believe the lender already knows them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that a lawyer has a strict duty to disclose all material facts to a lender client, and that the Appeal Panel reasonably concluded the Hearing Panel's legal errors rendered its factual findings unsafe.

The appellant estate appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim against the respondent for occupation rent and nursing care expenses.

The estate alleged the respondent unlawfully refused to allow the deceased to return to the matrimonial home after a hospitalization.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no evidence of an unlawful refusal; rather, the respondent, due to her own advanced age and frail health, was simply unable to provide the necessary care.

Furthermore, the claim for medical expenses was barred by the parties' marriage contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to three innocent third parties following the Crown's unsuccessful forfeiture application under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties without evidence of complicity or collusion by the owners.

The court found the Crown's conduct constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable prosecution standards, including failure to conduct proper disclosure, misrepresentation to the Superior Court regarding mortgage law, and proceeding with a meritless application.

The court awarded substantial costs to FirstOntario and reduced costs to Fercan and GRVN, considering factors including proportionality, duplication of services, and the applicants' own litigation positions.

Following the dismissal of a motion for leave to appeal, the successful responding parties sought costs.

They submitted a joint draft bill of costs reflecting fees, disbursements, and HST, with a reduction applied for duplication of work between two law firms.

The court found the respondents entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis and held that the draft bill appropriately reflected the Rule 57.01 factors, including the complexity of the proceeding and late amendments to the grounds of appeal.

The moving party accepted the claimed amount but requested a deduction to account for an outstanding prior costs order.

The court fixed costs accordingly after deducting the outstanding amount.

Costs decision following a motion by the Attorney General seeking a stay of an order pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The underlying order directed that more than $4 million seized in an in rem forfeiture proceeding be released to the respondents.

The court found that although the Attorney General brought the motion on very short notice, the respondents’ opposition was unreasonable given the risk that releasing the funds could render the appeal moot and cause irreparable harm by allowing the money to leave the jurisdiction.

However, the respondents should not bear costs that would have been incurred even if the motion had been brought on consent.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs payable by two respondents jointly and severally.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing a motion for the interim preservation of over $4 million under the Civil Remedies Act.

The funds were the proceeds of the sale of a commercial property previously housing an illegal marijuana grow operation and later leased to a company involved in a stock fraud scheme.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's finding that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the property was an instrument of unlawful activity.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The applicants sought costs awards against the Crown following the dismissal of the Crown's forfeiture applications under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties allegedly used in connection with marijuana grow operations.

The court found that the Crown's conduct in commencing restraint and forfeiture applications against innocent third parties, without evidence of complicity or collusion, constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution.

The Crown failed to properly assess available evidence before proceeding and maintained an intransigent "hardball" attitude throughout the proceedings.

The court determined that costs awards were warranted.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion under the Civil Remedies Act for an order to preserve over $4 million, representing the sale proceeds of a commercial property.

The property had previously housed a massive, concealed marijuana grow operation run by tenants, and was later leased to a company involved in a U.S. stock fraud scheme.

The court found no issue estoppel from prior unsuccessful federal criminal forfeiture proceedings against the property owner.

While the court found reasonable grounds to believe the property was an instrument of unlawful activity due to the grow operation, it ultimately dismissed the preservation motion.

The court concluded that preserving the funds would clearly not be in the interests of justice, as the owner had no knowledge of or participation in the unlawful activities, making a preservation order manifestly harsh and draconian.

The applicant corporation sought an injunction to prevent approval of contracts related to a proposed light rail transit project in the Region of Waterloo.

The court found the applicant lacked standing, noting it was recently incorporated, had unknown ownership, and possessed no apparent assets or ratepayer status.

The court further held the principal failed to disclose a personal interest arising from expropriation of his property connected to the project, undermining the equitable basis for relief.

The applicant failed to provide an undertaking for damages, did not establish a strong prima facie case under the Planning Act, and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a balance of convenience favouring relief.

The application for an injunction was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought revocation of two restraint orders issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and return of property proceeds held by the Seized Property Management Directorate Branch.

The Crown had previously dismissed its forfeiture application after over 35 days of hearings, finding no evidence of complicity or collusion on the part of the applicants.

The court granted the application, ordering revocation of the restraint orders and distribution of the remaining proceeds pursuant to a consent order among the interested parties.

The court rejected the Crown's request for a 90-day adjournment to allow the Civil Remedies Office to investigate whether to commence separate proceedings, finding such a referral constituted an abuse of process and an attempt to relitigate issues already determined.

The Crown sought forfeiture of two properties under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the discovery of sophisticated marijuana grow operations.

The first property, a former Molson Brewery plant in Barrie, contained two large indoor grow operations operated by individuals convicted of production and trafficking offences.

The second property was a residential dwelling in Phelpston owned by a company controlled by the respondent's brother.

The Crown alleged that the property owners and their corporations were complicit in or colluded with the drug offences.

The respondents argued they were innocent third parties unaware of the illegal activities occurring on their properties.

The appellant appealed an order varying a restraining order that permitted the sale of a property and directed the distribution of proceeds to a mortgagee.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that neither the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act nor section 490 of the Criminal Code provides a right of appeal from an order varying a restraining order in these circumstances.

The applicant mortgagee brought a motion to vary a restraint order under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to permit the sale of the subject property under power of sale.

The Crown consented to the sale, but the respondent owner opposed it, arguing the property had increased in value and disputing the mortgagee's claimed costs.

The court granted the motion to permit the sale, directing that the net proceeds be paid to the Crown.

The court declined to approve the mortgagee's claimed costs of over $388,000, directing that those funds be held by the Crown pending an assessment under Rule 58 and the final determination of the forfeiture proceedings.

The applicants, Fercan Developments Inc. and GRVN Group Inc., challenged the constitutional validity of sections 16 and 19 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which permit courts to order forfeiture of offence-related property.

The applicants raised three constitutional questions: whether the forfeiture provisions were ultra vires Parliament as relating to property and civil rights; whether they violated section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by conferring jurisdiction on provincial courts; and whether they violated the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The court upheld the constitutional validity of all challenged provisions, finding that forfeiture is a valid exercise of Parliament's criminal law power, that the Ontario Court of Justice may constitutionally exercise forfeiture jurisdiction, and that procedural safeguards meet Bill of Rights requirements.

The applicant corporation brought an application concerning a restraint order affecting property.

It was uncontested that neither the corporation nor its sole shareholder, officer, and director had been charged with any criminal offence related to the restraint order or the property.

The respondent did not dispute these facts and there was no cross‑examination on the supporting affidavit.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement confirming that these uncontested facts informed the earlier decision dismissing the application.