Christina Porretta

The defendant successfully repelled the plaintiffs' motion for an interlocutory injunction and sought its costs of the motion payable forthwith.

The parties agreed to fix the quantum of costs at $150,000.

The court departed from the general rule that a successful defendant on an interlocutory injunction motion is presumptively entitled to costs payable forthwith, noting that the plaintiffs only sought a permanent injunction at trial and there were factual issues regarding the defendant's conduct.

The court fixed the costs at $150,000 but reserved the issue of entitlement to the trial judge.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that Ontario had jurisdiction over it in the action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasons or conclusion, noting that the appellant accepted all findings of fact and the motion judge considered all relevant factors in the governing test.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted the appellants leave to amend their statement of claim in accordance with the Notice of Appeal.

Costs were awarded to the appellants in the cause on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to set aside a Registrar's order that dismissed their action for delay under Rule 76.06.

The appellants conceded the delay was inexcusable but argued there was no prejudice to the respondent, as the principal plaintiff had died.

The Divisional Court applied the contextual approach, finding that a nearly three-year inexcusable delay, the expiration of the limitation period, and the principles of finality and public confidence in the administration of justice outweighed any lack of prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed.