W. 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.

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.