Andrew Csont Dekany

This costs endorsement addresses the plaintiff’s entitlement to costs following a successful motion for exemption from mandatory mediation and related matters.

The court reviews the scale and quantum of costs, the relevance of expert evidence, the impact of funding by the Court Challenges Project, and the apportionment of costs between motions.

The court ultimately awards costs to the plaintiff, finding them reasonable and incidental to the proceeding.

This decision addresses the applications of various organizations to intervene in a constitutional challenge regarding migrant access to health care in Canada.

The court grants leave to several coalitions and organizations to intervene as friends of the court, with some permitted to review productions and attend discovery.

The court also addresses the scope of the deemed undertaking rule, the discretion to relieve intervenors from costs, and the exemption of the matter from mandatory mediation.

The ruling clarifies the criteria for intervention, the rights of intervenors, and the balancing of public interest and litigation efficiency.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions for intervention by various public interest groups and a motion by the plaintiff for exemption from mandatory mediation and a blanket order regarding disclosure.

The court granted intervention status as "friends of the court" to the CCPI Coalition, Amnesty International, ESCR-Net, Colour of Poverty Coalition, and Migrant Worker Coalition, with varying rights including access to productions and attendance at discovery for some.

The court also granted the plaintiff's request to exempt the matter from mandatory mediation, citing the public interest nature and previous attempts at resolution.

The plaintiff's request for a blanket disclosure order to third parties was adjourned.

All intervenors were relieved from liability for costs.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's order dismissing a motion to strike an action.

The motion judge had declared the respondent's claims timely and within the Ontario court's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by declaring the claim timely and precluding the appellant from raising a limitations defence on a Rule 21 motion, as fact-finding is generally not appropriate at that stage.

However, the Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction over the matter.

The appeal was allowed in part, striking the order that precluded the limitations defence.