E. Anthony Ross

The court amended its initial costs decision regarding an unsuccessful Request for Directions under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The initial decision directed Canada to pay costs to the Requestor.

The Requestor's counsel sought an amendment to have the cheque made payable to his law firm in trust, as the Requestor was never intended to be exposed to costs.

The court granted the amendment, directing Canada to issue a new cheque payable to the counsel's professional corporation in trust upon return of the original cheque.

The applicant, an impoverished former student of the Fort William Sanatorium School, sought an advance costs award to fund a Request for Directions to have the school recognized as an Indian Residential School under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

After numerous lawyers declined the case due to financial risk, the applicant brought this motion.

The court granted the motion, finding that the applicant met the strict criteria for an advance costs award: her claim had prima facie merit, she was genuinely impecunious, and the case raised issues of public importance regarding access to justice for residential school survivors.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of his action alleging misrepresentations in connection with the purchase of interests in two closely held businesses, and also challenged partial allowance of counterclaims by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's findings were grounded in credibility, were well supported by the record, and attracted deference.

It rejected the argument that one respondent breached the share purchase agreement by selling an interest he did not own, finding both parties understood the transaction as a sale of that respondent's interest.

It also upheld a damages award reflecting another respondent's continuing ownership interest after the appellant operated and dissolved one company without accounting to that shareholder.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The parties were involved in a joint venture agreement to develop land.

When the lender demanded repayment of its loan, the appellants did not pay their share.

The respondents used a non-arm's length company to purchase the loan and foreclose on the lands, appropriating the appellants' investment.

The appellants sued for breach of the joint venture agreement.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that none of the parties relied on the agreement's provisions and instead pursued self-interest outside its terms.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, ruling that a party cannot enforce an agreement it has demonstrated an intention not to be bound by.