3 total
Elevated costs of $460,000 awarded to successful party on intervention motion, apportioned among proposed intervener and defendants.
Following the dismissal of a proposed intervener's motion to intervene, the successful party and another intervener sought costs.
The court awarded the successful party elevated costs fixed at $460,000, apportioning liability among the proposed intervener (65%) and the two defendants (17.5% each) due to the defendants' delayed positions which complicated the motion.
The second intervener was awarded $12,500 in costs against the proposed intervener, limited to costs incurred after it first requested them in its factum.
The Court of Appeal quashed an appeal regarding tree removal at Osgoode Hall for lack of jurisdiction, finding the underlying injunction order was interlocutory.
Metrolinx brought a motion to quash an appeal by the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) from an order dismissing its motion for an interlocutory injunction, and also sought to set aside an interim injunction granted by a single judge of the Court of Appeal.
Metrolinx further raised a preliminary allegation of reasonable apprehension of institutional bias against the court.
HDI, in turn, sought an extension of the interim injunction.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Metrolinx's bias challenge, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.
The court then granted Metrolinx's motion to quash the appeal, concluding that the lower court's order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore the appeal lay with the Divisional Court with leave, not the Court of Appeal.
Motion for interim injunction dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction to appeal leave denial.
The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) sought an interim injunction from the Court of Appeal for Ontario to prevent Metrolinx from removing trees near Osgoode Hall.
This motion was brought pending HDI's motion for leave to appeal the Divisional Court's denial of leave to appeal an earlier injunction denial.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the interim injunction, finding that HDI failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried.
The court reiterated that appeals from an intermediate court's refusal of leave to appeal are generally not available unless the lower court mistakenly declined jurisdiction, an exception not met by HDI's arguments regarding constitutional rights or consultation.
