Dustin Kenall

This costs endorsement followed a twelve-year litigation where the plaintiff's case, alleging an unfair bidding process, was dismissed in its entirety.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of over $2.8 million, citing the plaintiff's unfounded allegations of dishonesty and collusion and persistence despite prior judicial warnings.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs, disputing the quantum and the basis for substantial indemnity.

The court awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs from the date of its offer to settle in May 2014, finding the plaintiff's continued litigation of weak claims warranted such an award.

The final costs awarded to the defendant were $1,864,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, after reductions for travel and excessive e-discovery costs.

The plaintiff, an incumbent service provider, sued the defendant community care access centre for damages arising from a 2003 Request for Proposals (RFP) process.

The plaintiff alleged the procurement process was unfair, claiming the defendant was motivated by a desire to avoid severance costs, used undisclosed criteria, permitted a conflict of interest, unfairly customized the RFP, accepted a non-compliant bid, and conducted a flawed evaluation.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that while there were minor procedural irregularities, the defendant did not breach its duty of fairness.

The court concluded the defendant had no financial motive to disfavour the plaintiff, the evaluation criteria were transparent, and the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the evaluation process.

The representative plaintiff in a proposed national class action alleged that multiple manufacturers conspired to fix prices of polyurethane foam and carpet underlay products.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking court approval of several negotiated settlement agreements with numerous defendants totaling approximately $29.28 million for the benefit of the class, along with cooperation provisions to assist claims against remaining defendants.

An objector argued that the settlements should not be approved until a distribution protocol and damages analysis were finalized.

The court held that settlement approval can properly occur before approval of a distribution protocol and that the negotiated settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the complexity, litigation risk, and absence of meaningful objections.

The settlements were therefore approved.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion seeking to vary a prior endorsement denying urgency, to set aside a costs award, and to obtain declarations relating to alleged misconduct by a respondent in a judicial review proceeding concerning an order under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The court reviewed the transcript of the earlier motion and found that the prior judge’s determination regarding urgency and the costs award were supported by the record and applicable law.

The applicant failed to establish any basis to vary the earlier endorsement or to set aside the costs award.

The court concluded the judicial review application was not urgent and ordered that the matter be transferred to the Divisional Court pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.