Court Of Appeal Summaries (November 23 ' November 27, 2020)

• Published date: 30 November 2020
• Subject Matter: Corporate/Commercial Law, Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Family and Matrimonial, Corporate and Company Law, Contracts and Commercial Law, Retirement, Superannuation & Pensions, Family Law, Court Procedure, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Civil Law, Divorce
• Law Firm: Blaney McMurtry LLP
• Author: Mr John Polyzogopoulos

Good afternoon.

There were only two civil decisions of any length released by the Court of Appeal this past week, dealing with security for costs of an appeal and variation of spousal support.

However, in J.M.J. Family Trust v. Simcoe Block (1979) Limited, we are reminded that a debtor's liability for "reasonable" legal fees incurred by a creditor enforcing a commercial agreement is not the same thing as liability for costs under the costs regime under the Rules. Unless the concepts of "full, substantial or partial indemnity costs" are imported into the commercial document, what is "reasonable" in the circumstances is not tied to such concepts.

Have a great weekend, and stay safe.

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Heidari v. Naghshbandi, 2020 ONCA 757

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Appeals, Security for Costs, Frivolous and Vexatious, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 61.06(1), Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 0827, Health Genetic Center Corp. v. New Scientist Magazine, 2019 ONCA 0968, York University v. Markicevic, 2017 ONCA 0651, Pickard v. London Police Services Board, 2010 ONCA 0643, Henderson v. Wright, 2016 ONCA 0089, Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2010 ONCA 0633

Nettleton v. Nettleton, 2020 ONCA 753

Keywords: Family Law, Separation Agreements, Spousal Support, Variation, Material Change in Circumstances, Imputing Income, Pensions, Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, Boston v. Boston, 2001 SCC 43, Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518

Short Civil Decisions

Abbas v. Albohamra, 2020 ONCA 740

Keywords: Family Law, Child Support, Imputing Income, Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97

Anderson v. Bubb, 2020 ONCA 746

Keywords: Family Law, Spousal Support, Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction, Attornment, Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c. F.3, Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c. 3

J.M.J. Family Trust v. Simcoe Block (1979) Limited, 2020 ONCA 741

Keywords: Contracts, Debtor-Creditor, Promissory Notes, General Security Agreements, Contractual Liability for Costs of Enforcement, Reasonable Legal Fees, Costs, Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.)

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 590 v. The Registered Owners and Mortgagees of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 590, 2020 ONCA 749

Keywords: Real Property, Condominiums, Duty to Repair and Maintain

Norris v. Starkman, 2020 ONCA 744

Keywords: Contracts, Solicitor-Client, Legal Fees, Civil Procedure, Assessments, Special Circumstances, Adding Parties, Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.15, ss. 4, McCarthy Tétrault LLP v. Guberman, 2012 ONCA 0679

---

CIVIL DECISIONS

Heidari v. Naghshbandi, 2020 ONCA 757

[Jamal J.A. (Motions Judge)]

Counsel:

S.N. Zeitz, for the moving parties

A. Niksich, for the responding party

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Appeals, Security for Costs, Frivolous and Vexatious, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 61.06(1), Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 0827, Health Genetic Center Corp. v. New Scientist Magazine, 2019 ONCA 0968, York University v. Markicevic, 2017 ONCA 0651, Pickard v. London Police Services Board, 2010 ONCA 0643, Henderson v. Wright, 2016 ONCA 0089, Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2010 ONCA 0633

facts:

This was a motion for security for costs under Rule 61.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The moving party and the respondent were friends and business partners for a long time. Over the course of this relationship, they made several loans to each other and entered into several transactions, most of which were undocumented. They also made loans to a corporation which they were both shareholders and directors of. These loans were also undocumented. Their relationship eventually soured and litigation over the loans and repayment of the various debts amongst themselves and the corporation.

The responding party to this motion was sued by the moving party and the corporation in 2009. The responding party counterclaimed in both actions for various reasons, but after nearly ten years of litigation, withdrew the counterclaim against the corporation on the eve of trial. At the trial of both the actions, the judge found that the issues turned on credibility and that the defendant (the responding party to this motion) was not credible. The trial judge found in favour of the...