Amelia M. Leckey

Following dismissal of an appeal from a master's order, the court considered written submissions regarding costs.

The court applied s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing proportionality and the factors governing costs awards.

The court also relied on appellate guidance that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than reflective of full indemnity for actual expenses.

Finding that the successful defendant was entitled to costs, the court awarded partial indemnity costs in a modest all‑inclusive amount.

The plaintiffs appealed a master's order dismissing their motion for answers to refusals arising from an examination for discovery.

The master held that because the action had been set down for trial, the plaintiffs required leave under rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring a refusals motion, and no such leave had been sought.

The appeal court reviewed conflicting jurisprudence on whether leave is required for refusals motions after an action is set down for trial.

The court endorsed the line of authority requiring leave and found that the master properly exercised discretion in declining to hear the motion in the absence of a request for leave.

The appeal was dismissed, though the plaintiffs remained at liberty to seek leave to bring a refusals motion.

Following the dismissal of an appeal, the successful parties sought costs of $17,790.17 on a partial indemnity basis.

The unsuccessful appellant argued that the claimed fees were excessive, particularly the time spent preparing the factum and the attendance time for the hearing.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than strictly reflective of actual legal expenses.

The court found that certain hours claimed for factum preparation were excessive and that the hearing occupied only a half day.

Costs were fixed at $14,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendant appealed a master’s order refusing to compel answers to discovery refusals and production of additional financial documents in a fatal motor vehicle accident action involving dependency claims under the Family Law Act.

The appeal challenged the master’s refusal to require the surviving spouse to answer questions about post‑accident income and dividends and to produce corporate and financial documents sought by the defendant’s expert.

The court held that the master applied the correct relevance test and did not commit a palpable and overriding error in determining that questions relating to post‑accident investment income were irrelevant to the dependency claim in the circumstances of a single‑income household.

The court also upheld the master’s discretionary decision to deny several production requests as premature or unnecessary, particularly where the materials had not been pursued during discovery or involved non‑parties.

The appeal was dismissed and the discovery rulings were upheld.