D.J. Taliano

The Crown sought costs for an initial pleadings motion, motions for leave to appeal, and the appeal, claiming success in having portions of the action struck and obtaining a stay.

The respondent argued for costs, asserting general success.

The Divisional Court found success on the appeal was divided and awarded no costs for the appeal or leave motions.

However, the court found the respondent achieved substantial success on the original motion and awarded the respondent costs of the motion fixed at $27,000, reduced by 25% to reflect partial success.

The plaintiff, a soldier, was assaulted by fellow soldiers in Afghanistan and later in Canada.

He was diagnosed with PTSD and awarded a disability pension under the Pension Act.

He subsequently sued the Crown for damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence.

The Crown moved to strike the claim under ss. 8 and 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, or to stay it under s. 111(2) of the Pension Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that claims relating directly to the assault and the failure to prevent hazing were barred by s. 9 to prevent double recovery.

However, claims relating to post-assault conduct were not plainly barred.

The remaining action was stayed pending the exhaustion of the plaintiff's pension remedies.

The applicants, real estate brokers, applied for judicial review of decisions by the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) Discipline and Membership Appeals Committees, which found they acted unprofessionally in purchasing property from a client without proper disclosure or advising her to seek independent legal advice.

The Divisional Court determined the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found the Committees' conclusions that the applicants breached the Code of Ethics and were not entitled to costs were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The representative plaintiff in a proposed class proceeding sought to introduce a settlement agreement and reasons for decision from a prior Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) prosecution against the defendants.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's refusal to strike these documents from the plaintiff's affidavit, arguing they were protected by settlement privilege and inadmissible.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the settlement agreement and reasons, finding that the defendants waived privilege by entering a public regulatory settlement, which was tantamount to a guilty plea.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to strike the statement of allegations, as mere allegations have no evidentiary value.