Alan John Lenczner

The parties disagreed on whether the judge should sign an order dismissing the plaintiff's prior certification and leave motions, or wait for the plaintiff's "motion for reconsideration." The plaintiff argued that signing the order might render the court functus officio, potentially precluding the reconsideration motion.

The defendant argued that the pronouncement of judgment was final and the order should be issued without delay.

The court decided to sign the order, issuing a fiat for its issuance and entry, clarifying that this decision did not determine the functus officio or abuse of process issues, which would be addressed in the context of the plaintiff's omnibus reconsideration motion.

Nobilis Health Corp. sought costs after successfully defending a class action certification motion and leave application brought by Vince Cappelli.

Nobilis requested $200,000 in partial indemnity fees and $311,696.39 in disbursements, primarily for three expert reports.

Cappelli did not oppose the fees but challenged the disbursements as excessive and duplicative.

The court found the expert evidence necessary and critical, despite some overlap, and deemed the disbursements fair and reasonable given the litigation risk.

Costs were awarded to Nobilis as requested, with the Class Proceedings Fund ultimately responsible for payment.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for breach of confidence and tortious interference with economic interests.

The court found no evidentiary foundation for the breach of confidence claim, noting that alleged confidential information (unsubmitted patent applications, supplier identities) was either not sufficiently identified, publicly available, or not misused by the defendant.

The tortious interference claim failed due to the absence of a third party.

The motion was granted, and the action dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

Indigenous peoples from Ecuador obtained a US$9.5 billion judgment against Chevron Corporation for environmental devastation caused by oil exploration.

After failing to enforce the judgment in the United States due to findings of fraud by the plaintiffs' counsel, they sought to enforce it in Ontario against Chevron Canada, a seventh-level subsidiary.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding that Chevron Canada's shares and assets were not exigible under the Execution Act and that the corporate veil should not be pierced.

The appellants appealed, arguing both that the Execution Act permitted seizure of Chevron Canada's assets and that the corporate veil should be pierced in the interests of justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits but reduced the costs award, recognizing the litigation as public interest litigation.

Indigenous Ecuadorian villagers obtained a US$9.5 billion judgment against Chevron Corporation in Ecuador for environmental pollution.

They sought to enforce the judgment in Ontario against Chevron Corporation and its seventh-level indirect subsidiary, Chevron Canada.

The motion judge granted an order requiring the plaintiffs to post security for costs of approximately $942,951 before the appeal could proceed.

The appellants moved to vary this order.

The Court of Appeal set aside the security for costs order, finding that the motion judge erred in principle by failing to conduct a holistic analysis of the justness of the order in all circumstances.

The court emphasized that security for costs orders must be just and should not be used as a litigation tactic to prevent cases from being heard on their merits.

The Ecuadorian plaintiffs sought to enforce a judgment of approximately 9.5 billion dollars from an Ecuadorian court against Chevron Corporation and its subsidiary, Chevron Canada Limited, in Ontario.

Following the Supreme Court of Canada's affirmation of Ontario's jurisdiction to hear the enforcement action, the motion judge granted summary judgment in favor of Chevron and Chevron Canada, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims on the basis of separate corporate personality.

The plaintiffs appealed.

Chevron and Chevron Canada brought a motion for security for costs.

The court held that security for costs was warranted because the plaintiffs were ordinarily resident outside Ontario, had not demonstrated impecuniosity, and had not established a good chance of success on appeal.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that a new approach to security for costs should apply to foreign judgment enforcement actions, finding that comity does not require foreign litigants to be treated more favorably than domestic litigants.

The Municipality of Port Hope was wholly successful on appeal and cross-appeal.

The applicants sought to avoid a costs award by arguing the matter was brought in a representative capacity on a matter of public interest involving novel legal issues.

The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, finding that the applicants acted to vindicate private financial interests and that the issues lacked significant societal impact.

The court awarded costs to the Municipality in the agreed-upon sum of $93,319.11, all inclusive.

The applicant sought to enforce an agreement between Canada and three municipalities regarding the storage of low-level radioactive waste.

The applicant alleged that the municipality had misused income earned on a $10 million payment by failing to apply it exclusively to defray lower-tier municipal taxes for ratepayers of the former Hope Township.

The application judge found that Schedule 8 of the agreement created a non-charitable purpose trust and that the municipality had breached its trustee duties.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the agreement was a contract and did not create a trust over the payment or the fund.

The applicants sought to remove the respondent from his position as mayor due to alleged conflicts of interest, but their applications were dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the respondent's request for costs.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs, totaling $78,298.93, to be paid by the applicants.

Kelly Darnley was ordered to pay $66,298.93 and Charles Bristoll $12,000.

The court declined substantial indemnity costs, finding the applicants' conduct not reprehensible, but noted their broad and unsupported allegations unnecessarily increased complexity.

David W. Fickel sought leave to appeal from a motion judge's order that stayed the execution of a summary judgment for payment on a promissory note, pending the final resolution of the main action.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment to Fickel on the promissory note but stayed its execution due to the interconnectedness of the claims arising from the same share purchase agreement.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary decision to grant a stay under Rule 20.08, and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general or public importance beyond the immediate parties.

The applicant sought a declaration that a $10 million host community grant, received by the respondent municipality, was subject to a trust for the exclusive benefit of ratepayers of the former Hope Township (now Ward 2), and an accounting.

The municipality argued it was a contract, no trust was settled, or if it was, it violated the rule against perpetuities and the claim was statute-barred.

The court found the grant constituted a specific non-charitable purpose trust, properly constituted, but violated the vesting rule against perpetuities.

However, it was saved by s. 16(1) of the Perpetuities Act, converting it into a special power to appoint income and capital until April 12, 2022.

The municipality was found in breach of its trustee duties for not adhering to the trust's strict terms and was ordered to provide an accounting.

The claim was not statute-barred nor defeated by laches or acquiescence.

This endorsement addresses costs for several prior motions.

The plaintiffs (Nicholson Group) were awarded costs for a successful motion for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The Janza group and Horbatiuk defendants were awarded costs for their successful motions regarding abandoned motions and contempt proceedings.

Andrey Pinsky was awarded costs against the plaintiffs for successfully opposing an indemnity motion brought by Mr. Nicholson.

The court applied principles under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1), declining substantial indemnity where no egregious conduct was found.

In a foreign judgment recognition and enforcement appeal, the Court held that an enforcing forum need not establish a real and substantial connection between itself and either the dispute or the judgment debtor.

The only jurisdictional prerequisite is that the foreign court issuing the judgment had proper jurisdiction under the real and substantial connection framework or traditional grounds.

The Court also held that traditional presence-based jurisdiction over a corporate defendant is established where the corporation carries on business in the province and is served there.

Questions about ultimate enforceability against related corporate entities were left for later procedural stages.

The plaintiff grocery store sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the municipality from removing a lay-by used for valet parking on a public street during planned road improvements.

The court applied the test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR-MacDonald and held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured relief.

The alleged causes of action—injurious affection and an easement—could not support the requested injunction, as any remedy for injurious affection lay in damages before the municipal tribunal and no easement could exist over a public highway.

The court also held that potential economic losses from removal of the lay-by were compensable in damages and that municipal authority over public highways weighed heavily against judicial interference.

Following a prior decision staying the action on terms, the court determined the issue of costs arising from interlocutory motions on the Commercial List concerning enforcement of a foreign judgment and jurisdiction over the defendants.

The moving party defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs after obtaining a stay.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principle, as well as appellate guidance that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than a full indemnity of actual expenses.

Although the defendants obtained a stay, the court held that the substantive success on the motion was mixed, as the plaintiffs succeeded on the jurisdiction issue while failing on the asset‑exigibility argument.

Given the mixed success and the novelty of the jurisdiction and service ex juris issues, the court ordered that no costs be payable by any party.

Following the dismissal of an environmental class action on appeal, the successful defendant sought costs for the period from certification to the trial decision, payable from the Class Proceedings Fund administered by the Law Foundation of Ontario.

The court held that the defendant was prima facie entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis under the general rule that costs follow the event.

However, under s.31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, the court considered that the proceeding raised novel legal issues concerning environmental mass torts and class proceedings and involved significant public interest, including access to justice and environmental concerns.

Balancing these factors with the defendant’s entitlement to compensation for substantial litigation expenses, the court reduced the costs award.

The defendant was awarded 50% of the otherwise assessed costs, payable from the Fund.

In a class proceeding costs dispute following the dismissal of environmental contamination claims, the defendant brought a motion to strike portions of affidavits filed by a third-party fund administrator opposing payment of costs from the Class Proceedings Fund.

The challenged affidavits contained opinion evidence from non‑expert witnesses asserting that the litigation raised issues of public interest.

The court applied the principles governing admissibility of lay opinion evidence from R. v. Graat, distinguishing between admissible opinion grounded in factual observations and inadmissible speculation or legal opinion.

While the court permitted most of the opinion evidence as permissible lay opinion supporting observations about the public interest and access to justice, it struck limited portions that lacked factual foundation or amounted to speculation.