Alan D’Silva

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

This decision addresses costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's cross-motion and the granting of the defendants' motions in a proposed securities misrepresentation class action.

The plaintiff, St. Clair Pennyfeather, had sought a *nunc pro tunc* order to save his statutory misrepresentation claim, which was ultimately deemed statute-barred.

The Timminco Defendants sought $124,028.81 in costs, and the Photon Defendants sought $25,330.07, both on a partial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments of divided success and public interest litigation, finding that the defendants were entirely successful.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) factors, the court found the defendants' requested costs reasonable, noting the complexity and high stakes of the litigation, and awarded costs as requested.

The defendants brought a motion for a declaration that the plaintiff's statutory secondary market misrepresentation claim under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act was statute-barred.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking an order granting leave nunc pro tunc to save the claim.

The court found that while the plaintiff was not barred by issue estoppel or abuse of process from arguing for a nunc pro tunc order, the request failed on its merits.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in CIBC v. Green, the court held that a nunc pro tunc order was not available because the plaintiff had not filed a motion for leave before the expiry of the limitation period, and the equitable factors did not favour granting the order.

The defendants' motion was granted and the plaintiff's cross-motion was dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the auditors’ appeal and confirmed that an expert witness must be able and willing to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan assistance to the court as a threshold admissibility requirement, with remaining concerns about independence generally addressed at the gatekeeping weighing stage.

The plaintiffs, selling shareholders in a family-owned group of companies, brought an action against the non-selling shareholders, the companies' lawyers, and accountants.

They alleged breach of fiduciary duty, oppression, and knowing assistance arising from a share redemption transaction.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendants failed to disclose material information regarding the potential sale of a core asset to a third party at a higher value.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the share redemption was a product of self-interested negotiations where both sides had independent advice.

No ad hoc fiduciary duty was owed by the non-selling shareholders, lawyers, or accountants to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' expectations were not reasonable under the oppression remedy.

Following a motion to vary a prior order permitting two defence neuropsychological examinations, the court had previously concluded that the defendants failed to disclose a settlement agreement eliminating their adversity on liability.

The order was varied to allow only one examination, and the court considered the appropriate costs consequences of the defendants’ breach of their duty to immediately disclose the agreement.

The plaintiffs sought elevated costs given the defendants’ non‑disclosure and the procedural consequences that followed.

The court held that full indemnity costs were justified as a “consequence of the most serious nature” arising from the breach, even though the conduct was not found to be reprehensible.

Costs of $27,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST were fixed as fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues.

Costs determination following several pre‑trial motions in a civil action arising from a professional hockey incident.

The court considered competing motions concerning disclosure of a settlement agreement, neuropsychological examinations, production of expert materials, and procedural timelines.

The plaintiffs were largely successful, particularly in compelling disclosure of the settlement agreement and obtaining related procedural relief.

While elevated costs were awarded for part of the motion due to the defendants’ failure to disclose the agreement and the resulting prejudice, most costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis after considering Rule 57.01 factors and the overall mixed results on some minor issues.

Following earlier reasons addressing disclosure of a settlement agreement between co-defendants, the defendants requested supplementary reasons to clarify whether the court had implied professional misconduct by counsel.

The court issued an addendum confirming that no lawyer intentionally misled the court and expressing confidence in counsel’s professionalism.

However, the court maintained its conclusion that the settlement agreement ending adversity between the defendants should have been disclosed because it was relevant to a prior motion concerning two neuropsychological examinations.

The court held the failure to disclose was an honest but mistaken decision made in good faith, rejecting claims that correspondence from the plaintiffs influenced the earlier ruling.