7 total
Costs capped by client’s fee obligation despite substantial indemnity entitlement.
Following dismissal of a $15 million civil claim, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful defendant.
The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on allegations of bad faith litigation conduct and a rejected Rule 49 settlement offer of $250,000.
The court declined to award substantial indemnity for the entire proceeding but applied Rule 49 principles, awarding partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.
The court also addressed the effect of a special fee arrangement between the defendant and its counsel, holding that costs cannot exceed the client’s actual obligation under s. 20(2) of the Solicitors Act.
Costs were fixed in accordance with the reasonable expectations of the parties and the scale of the litigation.
Judicial review of OLRB decision dismissing duty of fair representation complaint dismissed as reasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.
The Board had dismissed the complaint on a prima facie basis without a hearing.
The Divisional Court found the Board's decision was reasonable, as the union had conducted a reasonable investigation into the grievances.
The Court also dismissed the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness, bias, and language rights, finding no evidence to support these claims.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Absolute discharge annulled where bankrupt failed to satisfy mandatory surplus income obligations.
The Superintendent of Bankruptcy appealed a deputy registrar’s decision granting an absolute discharge to bankrupt individuals who had failed to comply with surplus income payment obligations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
The bankrupts had outstanding surplus income payments exceeding $10,000 and had not pursued mediation or other statutory remedies available under the Act.
The court held that s.172(2) of the BIA mandates specific responses where a bankrupt has failed to comply with payment requirements imposed under s.68 and does not permit an absolute discharge in such circumstances.
The deputy registrar exceeded jurisdiction by disregarding the statutory scheme and granting an absolute discharge despite non‑compliance.
The court annulled the discharge and ordered mediation, with a rehearing before a judge if mediation failed.
Co-op eviction overturned; boards must apply Human Rights Code and accommodate disabilities before evicting members.
The appellant, a resident of a co-operative housing corporation, was evicted for failing to perform mandatory volunteer work.
She had provided a doctor's note stating she was medically incapable of performing the work due to a mental disability, but refused to provide further medical details to the co-op board.
The Divisional Court allowed her appeal, holding that the court and the co-op board must apply the Ontario Human Rights Code when considering an eviction under the Co-Operative Corporations Act.
The court found that the co-op had a duty to accommodate the appellant's disability and that requiring her to divulge private medical information as a condition of maintaining her housing violated the Code.
Application for judicial review dismissed; arbitrator's failure to provide reasons on subsidiary time extension issue not fatal.
The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral award dismissing a grievance for being filed outside the time limit set out in the collective agreement.
The applicant argued the arbitrator failed to provide reasons for rejecting a request to extend the time limit under the Canada Labour Code.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's failure to provide reasons on a subsidiary issue did not amount to a breach of natural justice or render the decision patently unreasonable, as the applicant had failed to adduce evidence justifying an extension.
Costs of appeal awarded on a partial indemnity basis; counsel acting as affiants denied attendance costs.
The plaintiff sought costs of an appeal to the Divisional Court on a substantial indemnity basis.
The Attorney General conceded the plaintiff was entitled to costs but argued they should be on a partial indemnity basis.
The court agreed with the Attorney General, noting that substantial indemnity costs require egregious or vexatious conduct.
The court also disallowed costs for the attendance of two of the plaintiff's counsel who had acted as affiants and were requested to withdraw from the hearing.
Costs were fixed at $13,145 plus disbursements and GST on a partial indemnity basis.
Appeal dismissed; plaintiffs permitted to seek passive access to discovery evidence in parallel U.S. litigation.
The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion to enjoin the plaintiffs from seeking access to discovery evidence in parallel U.S. anti-trust litigation.
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were attempting to circumvent Ontario's discovery rules by obtaining discovery in the U.S. before certification of the class action.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs were merely seeking passive access to evidence already discovered in the U.S. litigation, rather than actively conducting discovery.
The court held that such evidence gathering does not offend Ontario's discovery rules or the implied undertaking rule, and that the U.S. court should determine whether to grant access under its own protective order.
