Roe v. Roe

Roe v. Roe

Leave to appeal the costs order was denied because the application judge performed a holistic review, her findings (no basis for elevated costs against appellant, reward to conciliatory respondent, discount for bona fide issue, and that Randy acted in self-interest) were supported by the evidence and within her...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 ONCA 349
Parties
Applicant/appellant/moving Party/responding Party by Way of Cross Motion: Robert Mark Roe; Respondent; Estate Trustee of the Estate of Beverly Grace Roe and Estate Trustee of the Estate of Richard Thomas Roe; Respondent/moving Party by Way of Cross Motion: Randall Scott Roe; Respondent; Estate Trustee of the Estate of Beverly Grace Roe; Respondent/responding Party by Way of Cross Motion: Raymond Christopher Roe
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Costs Order; Motions for Leave to Appeal and Cross Motion Regarding Costs
Outcome
Cross-motion for leave to appeal costs order dismissed (Randy); motion for leave to appeal costs order dismissed as abandoned (Mark); no costs awarded on motion or cross-motion.
Legal Topics
Will Validity, Estate Administration, Costs Awards, Leave to Appeal, Estate Trustee During Litigation (etdl)
Source Language
english
Civil Estate Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Appeal Will Validity Estate Administration Costs Awards +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Mark Roe

Applicant/appellant/moving Party/responding Party by Way of Cross Motion

Randall Scott Roe

Respondent; Estate Trustee of the Estate of Beverly Grace Roe and Estate Trustee of the Estate of Richard Thomas Roe; Respondent/moving Party by Way of Cross Motion

Raymond Christopher Roe

Respondent; Estate Trustee of the Estate of Beverly Grace Roe; Respondent/responding Party by Way of Cross Motion

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Costs Order; Motions for Leave to Appeal and Cross Motion Regarding Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fees associated with the Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) are matters relating to the action and recoverable from the appellant
  2. 2 Whether costs incurred by a defendant who settled (Chris) should be paid out of the estate or indemnified by the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the application judge erred in exercising her discretion in awarding costs and thus whether leave to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal the costs order was denied because the application judge performed a holistic review, her findings (no basis for elevated costs against appellant, reward to conciliatory respondent, discount for bona fide issue, and that Randy acted in self-interest) were supported by the evidence and within her broad discretion; appellant's motion was dismissed as abandoned; no costs were ordered for the motions.

Court Disposition

Cross-motion for leave to appeal costs order dismissed (Randy); motion for leave to appeal costs order dismissed as abandoned (Mark); no costs awarded on motion or cross-motion.

Orders

  • Cross-motion for leave to appeal costs order dismissed
  • Motion for leave to appeal costs order dismissed as abandoned