Amanda P. Cohen

Roch Longueépée, largely successful in his appeal, sought partial indemnity costs from the University of Waterloo and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found Longueépée entitled to costs against the University, fixing them at $25,000.

The court also awarded costs against the HRTO, fixed at $7,500, because its arguments on the standard of review and request for a five-judge panel expanded the scope of the appeal, even though its position was not taken in bad faith.

The respondent father brought a motion requesting a case conference on parenting issues, which had been previously adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother opposed.

The court granted the motion, ordering a one-hour settlement conference restricted to parenting issues, to be held electronically by the Case Management Judge.

Specific directions were given for scheduling, scope, and electronic filing of briefs and offers to settle, with parties advised to consider the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on their proposed solutions.

A provincially incorporated contractor providing construction services to federally regulated telecommunications companies sought to challenge a provincial labour relations board's certification of its construction technicians as a provincially regulated bargaining unit.

The contractor argued that its construction technicians performed work vital, essential, or integral to federal undertakings and should therefore be subject to federal labour jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court's decision, holding that the presumption of provincial jurisdiction over labour relations was not displaced.

The court found that the federal undertaking (Rogers) was not dependent on the contractor's construction technicians, and that the proper focus in derivative jurisdiction analysis is whether the federal undertaking is dependent on the particular employees in question, not whether the work performed is generally important to the federal undertaking.

The parties settled all outstanding issues in their family litigation except for costs.

The respondent sought costs, arguing success based on settlement offers and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour.

The applicant argued against awarding costs, or alternatively, for costs in her favour, citing the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court examined the jurisprudence on awarding costs after a global settlement, contrasting approaches that encourage summary determination of costs post-settlement with those that caution against it due to the difficulty in assessing "success" without judicial fact-finding.

Adopting the latter view, the court held that costs should not be awarded after a settlement unless there are compelling reasons, such as clear capitulation or unreasonable behaviour.

Upon review of the parties' offers and conduct, the court found no compelling circumstances to justify a costs award, noting that the settlement reflected divided success and compromise.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs for the proceeding, including the costs submissions.