André Marin

This is a costs decision following the successful application by the applicants to set aside an arbitral award and associated costs award on grounds of procedural unfairness.

The applicants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $49,636.38 against Dr. Frank Fowlie.

The court awarded the full amount requested, finding the applicants were entirely successful and the quantum was fair and reasonable.

The court rejected Dr. Fowlie's argument that he should not bear costs as he was not responsible for the arbitrator's conduct, noting that he actively opposed the application and did not challenge the procedural ruling during the arbitration.

The court also rejected any suggestion that Wrestling Canada Lutte should share in the costs award.

The applicants sought to set aside an arbitration award under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing that the arbitrator’s mid-hearing switch from an oral to a written process, and refusal to consider their closing submissions, constituted unequal and unfair treatment.

The Court found that the applicants were denied their statutory rights to an oral hearing and to equal treatment, and set aside the award, remitting the matter for a new hearing before a different arbitration panel.

This costs endorsement follows the granting of anti-SLAPP motions by the three defendants.

The court addresses the scale and quantum of costs, the issue of duplication between legal teams, and the entitlement of a self-represented litigant to costs.

The court awards full indemnity costs to the defendants, finding the requests fair and reasonable, and declines to award compensation to the self-represented defendant for his own time.

The appellant, Reset Electronics Inc., appealed the dismissal of its action against Hydro One Networks Inc. for alleged negligent misrepresentation and negligent performance of service.

Reset claimed Hydro One's delays in processing incentive payments for energy-efficient products caused its business failure.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the trial judge's findings that Hydro One owed no duty of care to Reset, did not breach any duty if one existed, and did not cause Reset's alleged losses.

The court affirmed that no undertaking inviting reasonable reliance was established between the parties, and Hydro One's actions were based on legitimate safety concerns.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal costs was refused.

This decision addresses a motion for summary judgment and to strike portions of a Statement of Claim.

The Plaintiffs, a corporation and its principal, sued for breach of contract after their independent contractor agreement was terminated.

The Defendants sought to strike the claim for wrongful termination and other allegations, arguing compliance with the contract's notice provision and irrelevance of other pleaded facts.

The court found that the termination claim had no reasonable prospect of success as proper notice was given.

It also struck claims against individual defendants due to privity of contract and ordered the removal of scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious allegations, including those related to defamation, the organization's history, and a Ministry of Labour investigation.

However, the court allowed the claim for breach of the contract's dispute resolution clause to proceed, granting leave for the Plaintiffs to amend their pleading to properly articulate this claim and associated aggravated and punitive damages, and to establish the principal's standing as a party.

The plaintiff, a federal political party leader, brought a defamation action against the defendants for publishing statements characterizing him as a racist, misogynist, and anti-Semite.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the statements were prima facie defamatory, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants had no valid defence of justification or fair comment.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to show that the harm suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting free expression on matters of public interest.