Antonio Conte

The plaintiff was successful on the main issue of a motion but unsuccessful on the leave issue.

The parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant argued costs should be in the cause of the appeal and sought a reduction in quantum.

The court held there was no reason to deviate from the general rule that costs are payable within 30 days.

The court reduced the plaintiff's claimed costs to account for excessive time and the issue on which the plaintiff was unsuccessful, awarding costs of $6,349 all inclusive.

The defendant owner brought a motion pending the plaintiff's appeal of a construction lien trial judgment, seeking security for costs and the return of monies posted to vacate the lien.

The court held that leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act is not required for appellate interlocutory motions.

The court dismissed the request to return the monies, noting the judgment was stayed pending appeal.

The court also dismissed the motion for security for costs under Rule 61.06, finding the owner failed to establish that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious or that the plaintiff lacked exigible assets, and found no special circumstances justifying an order under the residual discretion.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice, arguing the trial judge erred in refusing to re-open the trial and in interpreting the contract.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion or interpretation of the contract.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that her union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review.

The Court found that the Board was fully cognizant of the relevant facts and legal principles, and its decision was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the bankruptcy of Carnese Hardware Limited, raising issues of insolvency, the replacement of a general security agreement, and the transfer of two vehicles to the appellant and his wife.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in her findings, which were supported by the evidence.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding fraud and awarding damages.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding of fraud, noting the appellant falsely represented that a $123,000 deposit had been paid.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the valuation of the equipment.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to correct an error in the interest calculation, reducing the judgment amount to $18,533.43.

The appeal and cross-appeal were otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that defamatory words were spoken without qualified privilege.

The trial judge had found that while the appellant's communication to the police was privileged, his communication to a co-worker was not, as there was no reciprocal interest in the communication.

The Divisional Court found no error in the trial judge's reasoning and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.