William Michael Adams

The plaintiff was largely successful at a three-week construction lien trial, recovering $143,787.65.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on three offers to settle that were all beaten at trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff $180,739.70 in all-inclusive costs, finding that the defendants unreasonably resisted the claim and that proportionality should not be rigidly applied to undercompensate a successful party facing an unmeritorious defence.

The court also awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the contractual rate of 12% calculated daily on the lien-able portion of the judgment, and at the Courts of Justice Act rate on the damages for breach of contract.

The plaintiff, a construction company, brought a lien action against the defendant homeowners for unpaid work on a fixed-price custom home contract.

The defendants terminated the contract, alleging fundamental breaches by the plaintiff, including deviations from plans, unilateral changes, and project delays, and sought a declaration of repudiation and damages.

The court found no fundamental breach by the plaintiff, attributing delays and necessary changes to deficiencies in the defendants' own plans and designs.

The court concluded that the defendants wrongfully terminated the contract to avoid payment of the first milestone draw and to renegotiate the fixed price.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the lien amount and damages for breach of contract, and the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Ronald Albert Ornsby, was successful at trial and sought costs.

The defendant, Robert A. Monteith, did not provide submissions despite reminders.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs up to March 25, 2018, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, totaling $13,781.22, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court found the costs fair, reasonable, and proportional, applying Rule 57.01(1) and Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff, Ronald Albert Ornsby, claimed $65,000 from the defendant, Robert A. Monteith, for the outstanding balance of a banquet hall business sale.

The defendant counterclaimed for rescission of the contract and return of $100,000, alleging breach of contract by the plaintiff for failing to provide full disclosure.

The court found that a valid agreement existed and was completed, with the defendant taking possession and operating the business.

The court rejected the defendant's claims of non-disclosure and that the agreement was conditional on corporate incorporation, finding the defendant personally liable.

The defendant's counterclaim for rescission was denied as the parties could not be returned to their pre-contract position due to the defendant having stripped and sold chattels from the premises.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $65,000 plus pre-judgment interest.

Following a trial where the applicant was awarded dependant support from a group life insurance policy deemed part of the deceased's notional estate, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought costs from the respondent personally, while the respondent argued costs should be paid from the insurance policy proceeds.

The court held that costs cannot be paid from the notional estate, as doing so would defeat the dependant's relief.

Given the mixed result at trial, the cooperative conduct of the parties, and the novel legal issue regarding the interplay between the Succession Law Reform Act and the Insurance Act, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant, the deceased’s common-law spouse, sought dependant’s support under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act after the deceased left her nothing in his will and the estate had insufficient assets to provide support.

The principal issue was whether the proceeds of a group life insurance policy payable to a designated beneficiary could be treated as part of the estate pursuant to s.72(1)(f.1) of the SLRA.

The court found the applicant was a dependant who had received inadequate provision for support and held that the group life insurance proceeds were deemed to form part of the estate for purposes of a dependant’s support claim.

Considering legal and moral obligations and the applicant’s contributions to the deceased’s welfare and finances, the court ordered a lump‑sum support payment from the insurance proceeds.

The balance of the policy was awarded to the named beneficiary.

The parties sought determination of several issues regarding the calculation of net family property, including whether a 'granny flat' occupied by the wife's mother formed part of the matrimonial home, whether an investment account was a gift from the husband's father, and whether the wife was a joint owner of that account.

The court held that the granny flat was part of the matrimonial home as it was ordinarily occupied by the family.

The court also found that the investment account was a gift to the husband, but that he subsequently made an immediate gift of a joint interest to the wife by signing a joint account agreement.

The court applied a pro rata approach to trace the remaining gift funds in the mixed investment account.