Claudio Romeo Aiello

The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Regional Municipality of Halton appealed an order of the Ontario Municipal Board granting a $60,000 costs premium to the respondent.

The Board had relied on a Court of Appeal decision that was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, which held that a risk premium cannot be exacted against an unsuccessful party.

The Divisional Court found that the Board's rules focus on the conduct of a party, not the result achieved or the risk assumed by counsel.

The appeal was allowed and the costs premium was set aside.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Regional Municipality of Halton sought leave to appeal two Ontario Municipal Board decisions regarding a quarry site plan amendment and a substantial costs award.

The moving parties alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias and various evidentiary errors by the Board member.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal on the merits and bias issues, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decisions.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal solely on the issue of whether the Board erred in law by awarding a $60,000 premium in its costs order, noting that the Board's rules focus on misconduct rather than the result achieved or risks assumed by counsel.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a costs award of $30,825.42 made in a construction lien action where the plaintiff claimed $15,242.15.

The Master found the owners acted in bad faith by failing to retain statutory holdback funds and continuing spurious defences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle that would justify granting leave, given the owners' unprincipled conduct and the blameless conduct of the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice, arguing the judge lacked jurisdiction and erred in awarding costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's consent effectively amended the right to seek the court's assistance under the arbitration agreement, which, along with Rule 14.05, provided ample jurisdiction.

The court found no error in principle in the costs award.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim that their real estate agent breached her fiduciary duty by purchasing a mobile home for herself instead of for them.

The trial judge found that the agent did not misuse confidential information and understood the appellants were financially unable to purchase the home.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, noting they were questions of mixed fact and law entitled to deference.

The Court also held that the appellants' conduct in renting the home from the agent for over a year precluded the equitable remedy of a constructive trust.