Canada Judgment

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Wright v. Wright

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court set aside the application judge's costs order and, applying appellate standards (considering fees/disbursements, complexity, and the respondent's reasonable expectations), awarded the appellants all-inclusive partial indemnity costs of $105,000 for the application and $70,000 for the appeal, declined substantial indemnity, and ordered payment within 60 days.

02

Material facts

Parties

Tamara Christine Wright

Appellants/respondents by Cross Appeal Counsel: Justin de Vries; Elaine Yu

Renato Lombardo

Appellants/respondents by Cross Appeal Counsel: Justin de Vries; Elaine Yu

Karin Wright

Respondent/appellant by Way of Cross Appeal Counsel: Daniel Enright

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil / Appeal and Cross Appeal; Costs Determination by Court of Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellants argued they are entitled to their costs throughout, sought specific all-inclusive partial indemnity awards for the application and the appeal, and opposed an award of substantial indemnity costs.
Respondent
Respondent accepted that appellants were entitled to costs generally but disputed the scale and quantum of the costs of the appeal and other terms of the order and sought to uphold or vary the costs awarded at first instance.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court of Appeal for Ontario (Wright v. Wright, 2026 ONCA 268)

    Costs awards are fixed having regard to fees and disbursements, complexity of issues, and parties' reasonable expectations of costs.

  2. 02

    Court of Appeal for Ontario (Wright v. Wright, 2026 ONCA 268)

    Partial indemnity is the presumptive scale unless substantial indemnity is justified; appellate court may deny substantial indemnity where not warranted.

  3. 03

    Court of Appeal for Ontario (Wright v. Wright, 2026 ONCA 268)

    Costs orders by this Court shall be paid forthwith unless otherwise directed; Court may set a short deferred payment period.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court set aside the application judge's costs order and, applying appellate standards (considering fees/disbursements, complexity, and the respondent's reasonable expectations), awarded the appellants all-inclusive partial indemnity costs of $105,000 for the application and $70,000 for the appeal, declined substantial indemnity, and ordered payment within 60 days.

Obiter and limits

  • The Court urged the parties to seek agreement on costs at first instance and on appeal.
  • The general rule is that costs orders by this Court shall be paid forthwith.

Source and reliance status

Court of Appeal for Ontario · 13 April 2026

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Judgment· 13 April 2026

2026 ONCA 268

Wright v. Wright Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-04-13 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 268 Docket numbers COA-24-CV-1303 Judges Thorburn, Julie; Coroza, Steve A.; Gomery, Sally A. Subject Civil Decision Content

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Wright v. Wright, 2026 ONCA 268 DATE: 20260413 DOCKET: COA-24-CV-1303 Thorburn, Coroza and Gomery JJ.A.

BETWEEN Tamara Christine Wright and Renato Lombardo Applicants (Appellants/ Respondents by way of cross-appeal) and Karin Wright Respondent (Respondent/ Appellant by way of cross-appeal) Justin de Vries and Elaine Yu, for the appellants/respondents by way of cross-appeal Daniel Enright, for the respondent/appellant by way of cross-appeal Heard: September 16, 2025 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Grant R. Dow of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 6, 2024, with reasons reported at 2024 ONSC 4651, and the costs endorsement dated June 24, 2025, with reasons reported at 2025 ONSC 3743. COSTS: REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On February 13, 2026, we granted the appellants’ appeal and dismissed the respondent’s cross-appeal. In our reasons, we urged the parties to seek an agreement on costs at first instance and on the appeal. They have since advised that they agree that the appellants are entitled to their costs throughout and on the quantum of costs they should receive on the application. The parties do not agree on the scale or quantum of the costs of the appeal or on other terms of the order. [2] Having reviewed the parties’ submissions on these issues, we order as follows: • The application judge’s order granting the respondent, Karin Wright, partial indemnity costs of $105,681.60 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, is set aside. • Karin Wright is ordered to pay

$105,000 all-inclusive in partial indemnity costs to the appellants, Tamara Christine Wright and Renato (Ron) Lombardo, on the application. • Karin Wright is ordered to pay the appellants partial indemnity costs of $70,000 all-inclusive on the appeal. The appellants are not entitled to substantial indemnity costs. The costs award is based, in particular, on the fees and disbursements incurred; the complexity of the issues raised on appeal and the cross-appeal; and the respondent’s reasonable expectations of the costs she would have expected to pay. • All costs are payable within 60 days of this decision. This reflects the general rule that costs orders by this court shall be paid forthwith. “Thorburn J.A.” “S. Coroza J.A.” “S. Gomery J.A.”

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.