David P. Taylor

Costs endorsement following the appeal reasons reported at 2025 ONCA 861.

The respondents on appeal were the more successful parties, having succeeded entirely on one issue and partially on the second, where the court substituted a temporary stay for the motion judge's dismissal.

The court discounted both the motion judge's costs award and the agreed appeal costs by 25% to reflect the divided success, resulting in costs of $18,750 for both the motion and the appeal, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

A personal injury action arising from a 12-year-old plaintiff leaping from a balcony in community housing after an intruder forced his way into her apartment.

The defendants moved to strike portions of the statement of claim and to compel further production of documents.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the pleadings relevant to establishing foreseeability and duty of care.

The court granted the motion for further affidavits of documents but directed the parties to engage in collaborative discovery planning under Rule 29.1 before compliance.

No costs awarded due to divided success.

The applicant, an 86-year-old long-serving volunteer Scouter, was denied renewal of his volunteer status by Scouts Canada based on alleged safety concerns and resistance to program adaptation.

The applicant brought an application seeking to have the court intervene, arguing that Scouts Canada failed to follow its own disciplinary and performance management policies.

The court found that the relationship between the volunteer and the organization was contractual in nature, giving the court jurisdiction to intervene.

The court concluded that the allegations of misconduct were unfounded and that Scouts Canada breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to follow its policies.

The court granted declaratory relief, a mandatory order for the processing of any future applications by the applicant, and substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages resulting from alleged property interference and a blockade during a lawful strike by the defendant union.

Both parties brought summary judgment motions regarding the appropriate forum for the dispute.

The Superior Court held that it lacked jurisdiction, finding that the dispute arose from a labour dispute covered by a retroactive collective agreement.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the Ontario Labour Relations Board is the proper forum.

The appeal addressed the test for substantive equivalence under s. 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in minority language education.

The court held equivalence must be assessed holistically from the perspective of rights holders, including facilities, programming, and travel burdens, rather than formal cost parity.

The court restored a declaration that the minority-language educational experience was not equivalent to nearby majority-language alternatives, while leaving responsibility and remedy issues to later phases.

The court also upheld phased proceedings and restored special costs for the successful public interest litigants.