Law360 Canada ( October 30, 2026, 9:35 AM EDT) -- Appeals by nine Settling Parties (Settling Party Appellants) from the order excluding them from preserved proceeds; appeal by the Pichelli Group from the apportionment among investors who proceeded to trial (Trial Parties); and motion by the Settling Party Appellants for leave to appeal costs. The investors funded property taken in another’s name, intending beneficial interests rather than gifts or loans. The unpaid settlement agreements conditioned releases on payment and provided for equitable liens. Most Settling Parties maintained their original claims and gave notice they would participate in distribution. On the distribution motion, the Settling Parties submitted that their liens ranked equally with the Trial Parties’ trusts or, alternatively, that they had purchase money resulting trusts. The Trial Parties submitted that all preserved funds belonged to them. The trial judge held that resulting trusts crystallized only when judicially declared, the Settling Parties lacked factual and expert evidence, and settlement relinquished their proprietary claims. On appeal, the Settling Party Appellants submitted that the result was unjust, contrary to the policy favouring settlement and overcompensated the Trial Parties. The Trial Parties submitted that trial effort and risk justified the result. The Pichelli Group submitted that including costs in the apportionment improperly varied the trial judgment. The issues included the trial judge’s costs discretion under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act (Act) and whether to substitute a tiered order prioritizing investments and interest, trial costs, punitive damages and remaining judgment debts....