TORONTO – An Ontario Superior Court judge has declined to award over $200,000 in combined legal costs sought by the parties in a bitter and protracted legal dispute between a brother and sister over their late father’s estate and associated family businesses1. Instead, the court awarded a modest $14,000 against the plaintiffs, citing an inefficient and drawn-out process for amending their lawsuit, while leaving the larger question of costs to be decided by the trial judge.
The ruling, released on September 6, 2025, by Associate Justice McGraw, addresses a contentious costs dispute that arose after the plaintiffs massively expanded their statement of claim more than four years after the litigation first commenced. The case pits Dr. Nancy Shekter against her brother, Gary Lands, both of whom serve as trustees for the estate of their father, Melville Lands. The lawsuit also involves several corporate entities controlled by the family and includes Gary’s spouse, Deborah Lands, in her capacity as the power of attorney for Melville Lands.
The legal action was first initiated on the court’s specialized Commercial List in February 2020. The initial claim, which was amended once in October of that year, focused primarily on allegations of corporate oppression and sought remedies related to transactions involving the family companies and the estate. It also took issue with professional fees paid to Mr. Lands, who is a lawyer, and Ms. Lands, who is a Chartered Accountant.
The proceedings have been marked by significant delays and numerous disputes. The court noted that since the matter first came before Associate Justice McGraw in late 2022, there have been eleven case management conferences. The parties have clashed over document production, records from third parties, security for costs, and the scheduling of examinations for discovery, which were still not scheduled as of a conference in June 2025. Dr. Shekter, who is a non-practicing lawyer, was initially represented by counsel but is now self-represented and acting on behalf of the corporate plaintiffs as well.
The current costs issue stems from a lengthy process that began in September 2023. At that time, after receiving a large volume of documents from the law firm Aird & Berlis LLP, the plaintiffs signalled their intent to amend their claim to add the law firm and one of its lawyers as defendants. The defendants indicated they would oppose such a move. However, by December 2023, the plaintiffs changed their strategy. They informed the court they would defer adding the law firm and would instead seek to add new causes of action and a company named Beach-Lands Inc. as a new defendant.
What followed was a nearly year-long effort to finalize the new pleading. The plaintiffs delivered a draft of their Second Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim in July 2024, but the defendants would not consent to its filing. Two more drafts were provided in August and September 2024, which were also opposed by the defendants. A formal court motion to decide the issue was eventually scheduled for April 2025.
Finally, after the plaintiffs delivered a fourth version of their amended claim on November 21, 2024, the defendants consented to its filing at a case conference in December 2024. However, they did so on the condition that they could seek what are known as “costs thrown away,” arguing the amendments were so substantial that they effectively rendered all previous legal work useless. The plaintiffs initially argued no costs should be awarded but then made their own cross-claim for costs.
The scale of the amendment was significant. The plaintiffs’ First Amended Claim was 24 pages long and contained 78 paragraphs. The new version ballooned to 94 pages and 371 paragraphs, adding claims for restitution, unjust enrichment, and disgorgement of profits.
In their submissions to the court, the defendants argued that the amendments fundamentally restarted the litigation, shifting the focus away from the original oppression claims. They contended that nearly every step taken in the action to that point had been rendered moot and would have to be redone. On this basis, they sought $130,715.80 in partial indemnity costs, representing all their legal fees in the case to date, excluding work on document production. This figure included over $34,000 for work on the original pleadings, nearly $11,000 for a judicial mediation they claimed might need to be repeated, and over $45,000 for communications.
The plaintiffs countered with their own costs request, seeking $71,328. They argued they were the successful party because their amendment was ultimately permitted. Their central submission was that the extensive changes were necessitated by the defendants’ own conduct. They alleged that the defendants had concealed information and documents which, if disclosed earlier, would have been included in the original claim. This new information, they claimed, came to light in a “Document Flood 2023” from Aird & Berlis. They further accused the defendants of improper conduct aimed at delaying the proceedings.
Associate Justice McGraw declined to grant either of the substantial costs awards at this stage of the litigation. He found that the defendants’ claim for all their costs to date was premature. The judge could not conclude that the litigation had been entirely restarted, as the original claims for corporate oppression remained in the newly amended document alongside the new causes of action.
More importantly, the judge noted that the plaintiffs’ very reasons for the amendment, specifically the allegations of document concealment and a “Document Flood,” were now central issues pleaded in the new claim that would have to be decided at trial. The Second Amended Claim contains extensive allegations regarding the defendants purposely withholding documents to conceal wrongful conduct. “As a result, the Defendants’ alleged concealment of documents will be an issue for trial,” Associate Justice McGraw wrote. “Accordingly, I cannot make any findings regarding these allegations including if the Amendments were necessitated by the Defendants’ conduct.” The trial judge, he concluded, would be in the best position to determine if any costs were truly thrown away as a result of the defendants’ actions.
The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ request for over $71,000 in costs. The judge pointed out that a formal motion to amend was never actually argued; it was resolved by agreement. Therefore, there was no “successful party” to be awarded costs. Furthermore, the basis for the plaintiffs’ cost claim was tied to the same allegations of document concealment that are now at the heart of the case and must be decided at trial.
While rejecting the larger claims, Associate Justice McGraw did find that the defendants were entitled to some costs related to the “unnecessary” and “protracted process” of the amendment itself. He distinguished between the necessity of the amendments, which is an issue for trial, and the inefficient manner in which they were advanced. The judge found that the fifteen-month process, which involved the plaintiffs floating the idea of adding a law firm as a defendant before changing course and then delivering at least four different drafts of a massively expanded claim, was not efficient and caused the defendants to incur unreasonable costs. This process was the primary focus of five separate case conferences.
The judge rejected the plaintiffs’ assertion that the defendants were strategically opposing the amendments to create delay. “In all of the circumstances, it was reasonable and not out of the ordinary for the Defendants to critically review the Amendments and request costs as a term of any agreement,” he wrote.
Based on this inefficient process, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs to the defendants fixed at $14,000. This amount represents $13,000 for the legal work associated with the five case conferences and reviewing the multiple drafts, plus $1,000 for preparing the costs submissions. The payment is due within 60 days. The order was made “without prejudice” to the parties’ rights to re-argue their larger costs claims before the trial judge, who will have the benefit of the full evidentiary record.
Read more about estate law cases here.
