Edmund Se Huang

The claimant filed a compensation claim against the Ministry of Transportation under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to organize the proceeding.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties and scheduled a nine-day hybrid hearing to commence in March 2027.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded all-inclusive costs of $200,000 to the successful respondent, Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership, against the appellants, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario.

The decision considered that this was the second level of appeal, the issues involved, and the respondent's success.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision upholding an arbitration award.

The arbitration panel found that Ontario and OLG breached a Gaming Revenue Sharing and Financial Agreement with the First Nations Partnership by unilaterally stopping payments of non-gaming revenue and complimentary services ("Comps") after outsourcing non-gaming amenities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, affirming the lower court's decision that the Agreement was breached and the damages awarded were appropriate.

The court declined to rule on the standard of review for commercial arbitration decisions post-Vavilov, finding the outcome would be the same under either standard, and also declined to address the "honour of the Crown" doctrine as it was not determinative.

The appellants, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and Ontario, appealed an arbitration decision that found they breached the Gaming Revenue Sharing and Financial Agreement (GRSFA) by ceasing to share certain non-gaming and complimentary revenues with the respondent, Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review for commercial arbitrations remains reasonableness post-Vavilov.

The court found the arbitration panel's contractual interpretation was reasonable, firmly rooted in the agreement's text and surrounding circumstances, and that the honour of the Crown doctrine was correctly applied to the government-to-government agreement.

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario sought to lift a stay on its $330 billion health care cost recovery action against three tobacco companies (JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) and eleven co-defendants, which was imposed under CCAA proceedings.

Ontario proposed to temporarily stay the effects of any judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the need to preserve the status quo in CCAA proceedings to facilitate a global resolution of significant claims.

Allowing Ontario's action to proceed would alter the level playing field, distract from restructuring efforts, and impose significant costs, prejudicing other stakeholders.

The applicants, JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., sought protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) following a $13.5 billion judgment from the Quebec Court of Appeal and other ongoing litigation.

JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. moved for orders to file Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) leave applications but suspend further proceedings.

Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited and Imperial Tobacco Company Limited sought a blanket stay of all proceedings and limitation periods.

The Quebec class action plaintiffs opposed the motions and sought to partially lift the stay.

The court affirmed its broad jurisdiction under CCAA s. 11 to stay all actions, including appellate proceedings and limitation periods.

The court dismissed the motion by JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and granted Imperial Tobacco's motion, finding that a blanket stay best preserved the status quo and facilitated a global resolution for all stakeholders.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's class action, the court addressed costs.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ) sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totaling $779,405.70.

The plaintiff argued for no costs or a significant reduction, citing novel points of law and public interest under s. 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court found that the complex legal issues initially raised were not ultimately pursued, rendering s. 31 inapplicable.

However, the court disallowed HMQ's costs for an unsuccessful summary judgment motion, granting the plaintiff a credit of $216,550.

Ultimately, HMQ was awarded costs fixed at $470,810 for fees and $92,045.70 for disbursements, for a total of $562,855.70.

The appellant, Pro-Demnity Insurance Company, brought an application under Rule 14.05(3)(d) seeking a determination that s. 2(5) of the Architects Act does not prevent it from expanding its insurance business.

The application judge held he had jurisdiction but declined to exercise it, finding it more appropriate for the Superintendent of Financial Services to determine the question in the context of the appellant's pending licence amendment application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's discretionary decision was reasonable.

The representative plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of private issuers who operate ServiceOntario outlets, alleging that Ontario breached its duty of good faith and acted unreasonably in exercising its unilateral discretion to set their compensation.

The plaintiff argued that the compensation was inadequate and failed to keep pace with expenses.

The court dismissed the action, finding no evidence of dishonesty or bad faith by Ontario.

The court held that the duty of good faith applies to the performance of the contract, not to ensuring a commercially reasonable outcome, and that Ontario's compensation decisions were not commercially unreasonable in any event.

The alternative claim for unjust enrichment was also dismissed as the contract constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of Titles under the Boundaries Act regarding the eastern boundary of her property.

The Deputy Director found that the boundary was the western shore of Three Mile Lake, rejecting the appellant's claim that her property included land on the eastern shore.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Deputy Director's reliance on the original plan and patent, rather than other extrinsic evidence, was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

In this certified class action, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing claims by private issuers of motor vehicle licences and registrations alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from compensation fixed by the province.

The plaintiff informally sought summary judgment on issues including commercially reasonable compensation, good faith, and the anti-fettering doctrine.

Applying the post-Hryniak summary judgment framework, the court held that the action raised numerous genuine, novel, and profound issues at the intersection of private and public law that should be determined at trial.

The court emphasized the need for a full evidentiary record, party vindication, and appellate review.

Both the motion and the informal cross-request for summary judgment were dismissed, with costs in the cause.

A case conference was held to manage the scheduling of the defendants' outstanding motions to strike and for summary judgment, as well as the plaintiffs' proposed cross-motion and summonses to witness.

The court established a timetable for the delivery of affidavits of documents, notices of cross-motion, and the scheduling of motions to quash the summonses.

The court emphasized the need for efficient scheduling and discouraged the strict enforcement of procedural rights that would cause unnecessary delay.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision refusing a sealing order for Minutes of Settlement from prior litigation between the parties.

The motion judge had found insufficient evidence to justify sealing the documents under the Sierra Club test.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that there was reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, particularly in light of Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence establishing settlement privilege as a class privilege.

The court also granted an interim sealing order pending the appeal and awarded costs to the moving parties.

Following a trial regarding a construction contract dispute, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found that the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) engaged in reprehensible and unconscionable conduct by manipulating expert evidence and withholding information.

As a result, the court awarded full indemnity costs to Leveque.

Bruell was awarded mixed partial and substantial indemnity costs based on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court also granted a Sanderson Order, directing MTO to directly pay the partial indemnity costs of the successful defendant, AECOM, because MTO's defence strategy made it necessary for AECOM to remain in the litigation.

Following the dismissal of the foreign tobacco defendants' jurisdictional appeals, the Court of Appeal determined the costs of the appeals.

The appellants argued that costs should be capped at $100,000, asserting that the Crown treated the five appeals as one by filing a common factum.

The Court rejected this argument, finding no $100,000 ceiling exists for costs awards in the Court of Appeal.

Given the complexity, the $50 billion stakes, and the necessity of responding to five separate appeals, the Court fixed the Crown's partial indemnity costs at $237,332.50, apportioned between the BAT and RJR appellants.

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) awarded a contract to Leveque for highway surface treatment.

The initial treatment failed shortly after application.

MTO ordered Leveque to remove and replace it, arguing Leveque was responsible under the contract's warranty for selecting incompatible aggregate.

Leveque performed the work under protest and sued for breach of contract.

The court found the contract was a method specification, meaning MTO bore the risk of the design's performance.

The court held that the failure was primarily caused by MTO's excessive binder application rates, poor weather, and MTO's refusal to restrict heavy truck traffic or permit sanding.

MTO was found solely liable for breach of contract and ordered to pay damages for the extra work.

Ontario sued foreign and domestic tobacco manufacturers under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2009 to recover health care costs.

Six foreign defendants brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, which was dismissed.

The foreign defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory claim was analogous to a tort committed in Ontario, establishing a presumptive connecting factor under the Van Breda framework.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's findings that Ontario established a good arguable case and affirmed the costs award.

Following dismissal of jurisdiction motions brought by several foreign tobacco companies in a health care cost recovery action, the court determined costs.

The unsuccessful moving parties argued that earlier evidentiary and procedural steps constituted separate proceedings and sought substantial costs for those steps.

The court rejected that characterization, holding that all preliminary steps formed part of the overall jurisdiction challenge and that distributive costs awards based on success on individual steps should be avoided.

Applying Rule 57.01 factors and general costs principles, the court found the responding party was the successful party and entitled to costs, subject to reductions reflecting partial success on certain evidentiary and motion issues.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $425,000 plus disbursements, allocating liability between two groups of moving defendants.

The appellant appealed four orders striking out his Statements of Claim against the City of Hamilton and the Government of Ontario.

The claims involved allegations of failure to fund employment assistance programs, failure to ensure a competitive job market, and requests for the legislature to enact laws addressing alleged abuses of power.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judges that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action or were outside the purview of the courts.

The appeals were dismissed.

The Crown brought an action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act against several domestic and foreign tobacco companies, claiming $50 billion for health care costs related to tobacco disease.

Six foreign defendants brought motions to set aside service ex juris and stay or dismiss the action, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Crown had established a good arguable case that the foreign defendants conspired and acted in concert to commit tobacco-related wrongs, establishing a real and substantial connection to Ontario.