Ochnik (Trustee) v. Belusa

Ochnik (Trustee) v. Belusa

The appeal was allowed but no costs were awarded because the appellant failed to prove forgone income and the appeal was conceded shortly after counsel was retained, so no additional work justified costs.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2019 ONCA 785
Parties
Appellant: Richard Ochnik (Trustee) for the Ochnik Family Trust; Respondent: Claudia Belusa a.k.a. Claudia Irma Ochnik
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; no costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Costs, Forgone Income, Concession of Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Trusts Appeal Costs Forgone Income Concession of Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Ochnik (Trustee) for the Ochnik Family Trust

Appellant

Claudia Belusa a.k.a. Claudia Irma Ochnik

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be allowed
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to costs
  3. 3 Whether the appellant proved forgone income to support a costs claim

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed but no costs were awarded because the appellant failed to prove forgone income and the appeal was conceded shortly after counsel was retained, so no additional work justified costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; no costs awarded.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • No costs awarded to the appellant