A. Fabio Longo

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The Court of Appeal had previously released its decision and invited written submissions on costs.

Considering the appellant's partial success on one issue and the dismissal of the balance of the appeal, the court fixed costs of the appeal at $20,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the appellant to the respondent.

The Landlord appealed a trial judgment concerning a commercial lease, challenging conclusions regarding rent for a shed area and mezzanine, and the tenant's option to extend the lease, as well as the costs award.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal only to correct the limitation period for arrears of "non-lease-based rent" for the shed area from two to six years, finding it fell under the Real Property Limitations Act.

All other grounds of appeal, including the mezzanine rent, the validity of the lease extension, and the costs award, were dismissed.

This costs endorsement addresses several pre-trial and mid-trial motions, as well as costs thrown away, following a mistrial declared due to the plaintiff's health crisis.

The court considered motions regarding venue transfer, exclusion of surveillance evidence, expert and non-party expert witnesses, and two motions for mistrial.

The court applied principles of costs following the event and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), and specifically addressed "costs thrown away" in the context of a mistrial not caused by fault but by the responsibility of a party due to an unforeseen health event.

The plaintiff was awarded costs for the surveillance and expert witness motions, while the defendant was awarded costs for their mistrial motion and substantial indemnity for costs thrown away.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed its jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order granting vacant possession.

Despite arguments from the parties, the court determined that the order fell under s. 78(1) of the Commercial Tenancies Act, which directs such appeals to the Divisional Court.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal transferred the appeal to the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, declining to hear the merits.

No costs were ordered.

On the eve of a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the plaintiff brought a motion to exclude late-served video surveillance reports or, alternatively, for an adjournment.

The court found that the recent surveillance was not substantially different from previously disclosed surveillance and did not unfairly surprise the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion to exclude the evidence, granting the defendant leave to use the reports for substantive purposes subject to a mid-trial voir dire.

A short adjournment was granted to allow the plaintiff to review the new surveillance.

The appellant appealed orders dismissing her action and denying her motion to set aside the dismissal.

The lower court judge dismissed the action for failure to file notice of appointment of counsel or intention to act in person within 30 days of an order removing her former lawyer.

The Court of Appeal found the dismissal order deficient because it failed to include the required text of the applicable rules, the appellant had not been properly served with the motion, and no reasons were given for the draconian remedy.

The appeal court set aside both lower court orders and imposed a 14-day deadline for the appellant to file notice of appointment of counsel.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal a dismissal order from the trial court.

The dismissal was granted after the moving party failed to appoint new counsel or file a notice of intention to act in person following her previous counsel's removal from the record.

The moving party had instead attempted to set aside the dismissal order on the basis it was made without notice, which motion was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal considered the applicable principles for extending time to appeal and granted the extension on terms, finding the proposed appeal raised arguable issues and that the justice of the case favoured granting the extension despite the moving party's lack of diligence.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing a motor vehicle negligence claim.

The motion judge found that the appellant made a left-hand turn facing a yellow light in front of an oncoming truck driven by the respondent, who did not run a red light as alleged.

The motion judge concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the respondent's responsibility for the accident.

The appellant argued the motion judge reversed the evidentiary burden and erred in granting summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding the motion judge correctly applied the burden of proof and the appellant failed to meet the onus that shifted to her to demonstrate contributory negligence.