Andrew Kinoshita

In an action concerning a procurement process for Visa Application Centre services, the parties sought to settle the terms of a confidentiality order governing the disclosure of Third Party Information.

The sole issue was the wording of a paragraph dictating the scope of submissions that affected Third Parties could make on a future motion to determine confidentiality.

The plaintiffs argued for a narrower scope, while the defendant and Third Parties argued for a broader scope.

The court adopted the plaintiffs' proposed wording, finding it addressed issues clearly relevant to the Third Parties without tying the hands of the judge hearing the future motion, but noted this did not necessarily preclude Third Parties from raising other issues.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for particulars and an extension of time to deliver a reply, achieving mixed success.

The court ordered the defendant to provide one critical particular regarding the value of a contract, while dismissing the other requests.

The parties could not agree on costs.

Given the mixed success and the early stage of the case-managed action, the court ordered that the costs of the motion be payable in the cause.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking particulars of allegations in the defendant's statement of defence and an extension of time to deliver a reply.

The defendant argued that pleadings were closed and that an affidavit was required to support the demand for particulars.

The court found that a demand for particulars could be made regardless of the status of pleadings and that an affidavit was not required if the allegations were "general and bald." The court ordered the defendant to provide particulars regarding the value of the contract (paragraph 9 of the statement of defence) as it was deemed a material fact and a "general and bald" denial.

However, the court denied the demand for particulars for the remaining ten allegations, finding them sufficiently detailed or within the plaintiffs' knowledge, and that an affidavit was necessary for those.

The plaintiffs were granted an extension to deliver their reply.

This is a costs endorsement following a Court of Appeal decision that allowed an appeal in part.

The appellant sought costs in the court below on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of its offer to settle, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's reliance on an offer to settle made in the context of its own application, which had been dismissed.

The court found the result on appeal was mixed and awarded costs to the appellant in the amount of $28,565.99, the same amount originally awarded to the respondent in the court below.

Following a previous decision, the respondent sought costs against the self-represented applicant.

The respondent presented a bill of costs for partial indemnity costs totalling $21,112.00 but limited its request to $1,000.00 due to the applicant's circumstances.

The applicant did not deliver any submissions.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs fixed at $1,000.00.

Following the dismissal of a motion for partial default judgment and partial summary judgment, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The defendant Crown sought substantial indemnity costs including significant expert disbursements.

The court reviewed the general principles governing costs under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

It concluded that the moving party's evidence supporting an alleged equitable mortgage was deficient and unreasonable in the context of the summary judgment motion.

Substantial indemnity costs and expert disbursements were awarded to the Crown.

The applicant employer sought a determination that it was entitled to deduct withholding tax and employer statutory contributions from a settlement payment resolving an employment dispute.

The respondent employee brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce the minutes of settlement, arguing that legal costs payable to counsel were expressly to be paid without deductions.

The court held that the minutes clearly distinguished between legal costs payable directly to counsel and employment income payments subject to withholding tax.

The employer was not entitled to deduct withholding tax from the legal fee payment or subtract CPP, EI, and Employer Health Tax contributions from the settlement amount.

However, the court declined to enforce the default penalty clause because the deductions resulted from a mistaken interpretation of tax obligations rather than deliberate default.

The moving party sought partial summary judgment and default judgment declaring an equitable mortgage or equitable interest over two Ottawa properties, asserting priority over liens registered by the Canada Revenue Agency for tax debts of one of the defendants.

The claim relied primarily on a written agreement and the alleged use of funds provided by the moving party in property transactions.

The court held that the agreement did not establish the essential elements of an equitable mortgage, including a clearly defined debt and intention to charge specific property as security.

Significant disputes existed regarding the source of funds and the parties’ intentions, raising credibility issues.

The court concluded that these issues required viva voce evidence at trial and dismissed the motion for summary judgment.