4 total
Costs of first instance motions remitted to trial judge following successful appeal.
Following a successful appeal, the appellants and respondents agreed that the court's previous statement regarding costs at first instance was erroneous.
The court received written submissions on the proper disposition of costs at first instance.
Given that the appeal reversed the partial summary judgment granted to the respondents, both parties were entirely unsuccessful at first instance.
The court set aside the costs order below and remitted the costs of the motions at first instance to the trial judge, who would be in the best position to assess their relative importance in light of the trial result.
Appeal allowed; genuine issues for trial exist regarding the legality of the municipality's land expropriation.
The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision granting partial summary judgment to the respondent municipalities.
The motion judge had dismissed the appellants' claim that the expropriation of their mall lands for a new Toyota plant was illegal per se.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding whether the expropriation price was below fair market value (constituting an illegal bonus under the Municipal Act), whether the expropriation conformed to the official plan under the Planning Act, and whether the municipality acted in bad faith.
Cause of action estoppel does not apply where an earlier action was resolved by settlement without a court determination.
The appellant appealed a judgment, arguing that the respondent's claim was barred by cause of action estoppel due to an earlier small claims court action.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that cause of action estoppel did not apply because the earlier action was resolved by a settlement without a court determination or releases.
Furthermore, the respondent was not required to assert its complaint as a counterclaim in the small claims court, as it would have exceeded the monetary jurisdiction.
Taxpayer's method of reporting gold futures trading losses when incurred and gains when realized upheld.
The taxpayer claimed business losses from trading in gold futures, reporting losses when incurred and gains when realized.
The Minister reassessed, arguing for a 'marked to market' accounting method.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, upholding the taxpayer's accounting method and affirming the lower courts' findings that the loss and gain legs of a spread transaction could be considered in isolation.
