Chantal Beaupre

The plaintiffs, suspended elected officials of a trade union, commenced civil actions against the union alleging procedural unfairness and other torts relating to their internal discipline.

The defendant unions moved to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court determined that the essential character of the dispute involved alleged discriminatory discipline and natural justice breaches within the union's internal disciplinary process.

The Court held that this subject matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff estate trustee brought a motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside a registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The underlying action involved alleged historical loans made by the deceased to the defendant.

The court found that the plaintiff's explanation for the delay was reasonable, as it was primarily caused by the defendant's capacity issues and the need to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as her litigation guardian.

Although the delay was not due to inadvertence, the motion was brought promptly and the defendant suffered no actual prejudice.

The court set aside the dismissal order and restored the action.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of R. Smith J. dated June 26, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The Plaintiff, 2449442 Ontario Inc., was awarded $82,752 at trial in a construction lien case, while the Defendant, Cambridge Drywall Services LTD. (CDS), succeeded on its counterclaim for $30,000, resulting in a net recovery of $52,752 for the Plaintiff.

CDS successfully defended against 87% of the Plaintiff's total claim.

This decision addresses the parties' claims for costs.

The court considered factors under Rule 57, including divided success and CDS's offer to settle, which, though not compliant with Rule 49.10(2) due to timing, exceeded the Plaintiff's net recovery.

The court also addressed the applicability of simplified procedure rules under the Construction Act.

Ultimately, the court ordered CDS to pay the Plaintiff $100,000 in costs plus HST and disbursements, reflecting a reduction from the Plaintiff's claimed costs due to the divided success and CDS's reasonable, albeit non-compliant, offer.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member who used a school board-issued laptop to access dating sites and pornographic videos.

The laptop was kept in the member's office where students could have accessed it.

The member admitted to the facts and pled guilty to professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, an eight-month suspension of the member's certificate of qualification, and the completion of a professional ethics course.

Following the dismissal of the employer's appeal from a Small Claims Court decision awarding the employee $25,000 for wrongful dismissal, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The employee sought $16,450.25 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the employer argued for a lower amount.

The court found the issues were not complex and awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,000 for the appeal, plus the maximum allowable 15% of the damages ($3,750) for the trial costs under section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicants sought to lift a stay of proceedings to enforce a prior summary judgment order for $102,500 against the respondents, who had filed a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicants argued the debt fell under exceptions for discharge (fraud, misrepresentation, or fiduciary defalcation) under s. 178(1) of the BIA.

The court reviewed the original application, the 2017 order, and new evidence, finding no basis for fraud, misrepresentation, or a fiduciary relationship.

The court concluded that the debt was a simple breach of contract and therefore dischargeable in bankruptcy.

The motion to lift the stay was dismissed as the applicants failed to demonstrate material prejudice or other equitable grounds.

The plaintiffs, having been awarded damages for civil fraud and misrepresentation regarding a septic system and retaining wall, sought full or substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants argued for no costs or reduced costs, citing partial success of the plaintiffs' claims and their own settlement offers.

The court, considering the defendants' objectionable conduct, including civil fraud and high-handed actions post-transaction, awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The court balanced the plaintiffs' partial success and some inefficiencies against the defendants' conduct and failure to make reasonable offers.

Purchasers of a residential property sued the vendors over an undersized septic system, alleged misrepresentations about a loft apartment, water issues, a retaining wall defect, and a sprinkler system.

The court held that the vendors breached the agreement of purchase and sale and committed civil fraud by marketing the property as including a habitable loft apartment while installing or procuring approval for a septic system that was inadequate for the property as marketed.

The court found the vendors could not rely on caveat emptor or lack of due diligence in relation to that fraud, but rejected the claims for lost rental income, well water damages, plumbing damages, and sprinkler damages.

Damages were awarded for the cost of replacing the septic system and repairing the retaining wall, plus pre-judgment interest.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendants.

The defendants sought $45,380.73 in costs, while the plaintiff argued for $9,000.

The court fixed costs at an all-inclusive sum of $17,500, payable forthwith by the plaintiff to the defendants.

The decision considered factors under Rule 57.01(1), a Rule 49 offer, and the principle from Boucher v. Public Accountant Council for Ontario that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than solely reflecting the successful litigant's actual incurred costs.

This was a motion for summary judgment by eight of the named defendants (six holding companies and two individual directors) in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendants sought to dismiss claims against them, arguing they were not 'common and related employers' and that the corporate veil should not be pierced for the individual directors.

The court applied principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin for summary judgment motions, and considered the common employer doctrine and personal liability of corporate officers.

The motion was granted, dismissing the claims against the individual directors due to no evidence of fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or want of authority, and against the holding companies as they did not exercise effective control over the plaintiff's employment.

On the return of a civil contempt motion, the plaintiff sought incarceration after the defendant failed to purge an earlier contempt finding by providing complete answers to undertakings.

The court found the defendant continued to mislead the court through repackaged, redacted, and unreliable documents and had not purged his contempt.

Applying the established principles governing civil contempt sentencing, the court held that a further custodial sanction was unnecessary given the prior striking of the defence, partial judgment, and earlier costs award.

The court instead imposed a $7,500 fine, authorized further tracing steps through signed authorizations, and awarded substantial indemnity costs of $12,000.

The applicant consented to dismiss the human rights application against the respondent union, the Association de la police de l'Ontario.

As no parties objected, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union and amended the style of cause accordingly.

Following a finding of contempt and a motion to strike the defence, the successful party sought full indemnity costs exceeding $67,000.

The court considered the aggravating factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the conduct of the responding party, including findings that the responding party had deliberately misled the court and bankruptcy officials.

The court held that the contempt finding justified costs on a higher scale, namely substantial indemnity.

However, the court reduced the amount claimed to account for prior cost awards and some duplication related to a previous motion to lift a stay of proceedings.

Costs were fixed at $50,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The Board had dismissed the complaint on a prima facie basis without a hearing.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision was reasonable, as the union had conducted a reasonable investigation into the grievances.

The Court also dismissed the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness, bias, and language rights, finding no evidence to support these claims.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Costs were determined following a successful motion removing the plaintiffs’ solicitors due to a conflict of interest arising from the hiring of a lawyer who previously acted for the defendant and the deceased in related matters.

The court found that the lawyer possessed confidential and privileged information and had disclosed it to the firm representing the plaintiffs, and that the firm failed to implement effective screening measures.

The defendant and a supporting third party sought substantial or full indemnity costs.

The court concluded that the conduct of the plaintiffs’ counsel was sufficiently egregious to warrant full indemnity costs.

Costs were awarded to both the moving defendant and the third party, with a portion ordered to be paid personally by the solicitors under Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.