Eliot Dhat-Yeung Che

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal decision dated June 30, 2017.

The appellants (Iranian government entities) appealed orders from the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most appeals but allowed appeals in actions commenced by certain respondents, striking those actions.

The court awarded costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the appellants' argument that no costs should be awarded due to novel issues and declining to award substantial indemnity costs or costs to respondents whose actions were struck.

The appellants (Iran and related entities) appealed orders of the Superior Court of Justice recognizing and enforcing U.S. judgments obtained by victims of terrorism against Iran for its sponsorship of terrorist attacks.

The respondents sought to enforce these judgments in Ontario under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA) and amendments to the State Immunity Act (SIA).

Iran challenged the recognition and enforcement of the judgments on multiple grounds, including arguments regarding state immunity, the temporal scope of the JVTA, proof requirements, limitation periods, jurisdiction, public policy, diplomatic immunity, and the appropriateness of costs awards.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Iran's appeal, save for judgments arising from terrorist attacks that occurred prior to January 1, 1985, which could not be enforced under the JVTA.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of part of its application for relief arising from a fire at an adjoining semi-detached property.

The appellant sought recovery of losses caused by the fire and subsequent conduct of the respondent and its predecessor.

The key issue was whether the respondent, having purchased the damaged property several months after the fire, became liable for damages caused to the appellant's property prior to the respondent's acquisition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the respondent had no involvement in and could not be responsible for damages accrued before it acquired the property.

The court also reduced the respondent's costs award on appeal.

Following the dismissal of Iran's motions to set aside default judgments and a Mareva injunction, the plaintiffs sought costs.

Iran argued it was immune from costs orders under the State Immunity Act and the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

The court held that Iran was not immune from costs and awarded the plaintiffs costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the claimed amounts reasonable given the complexity and high stakes of the proceedings.

The defendants (Underwriters) sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that allowed the plaintiff to amend its claim to add the Underwriters as defendants in a class action and admitted the plaintiff's expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision regarding the admissibility of the expert evidence and the finding that the Underwriters would not suffer non-compensable prejudice by being added as parties.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' reply factum filed on a motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court held that under Rule 61.03.1(11), a reply factum is only permitted where a new issue is raised by the responding party, not merely to provide a different perspective or reinforce points already made.

Finding that the reply factum addressed issues central to the leave motion rather than new issues, the court ordered the reply factum struck from the record.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a previous decision that dismissed part of the applicant's application and converted the balance into an action.

The respondent sought 83% of its partial indemnity costs, arguing it was substantially successful on the dismissed issue.

The applicant argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court awarded the respondent $65,000 in costs for the dismissed issue, finding the applicant's changing case theory unnecessarily increased costs, and reserved the remaining costs to the trial judge.

Lixo Investments Limited applied for relief concerning demolition work by FCHT Holdings on an adjacent property, particularly regarding a shared party wall damaged by a prior fire.

The application sought damages for loss of use and reconstruction costs, alleging FCHT was responsible for pre-acquisition fire effects and negligent demolition.

The court dismissed claims related to pre-acquisition events, finding FCHT did not inherit prior tortious conduct.

For claims regarding FCHT's demolition work and its impact on the party wall, the court found material facts in dispute requiring viva voce evidence and expert testimony.

Consequently, the balance of the application was converted into an expedited action for trial.

The plaintiff, LBP Holdings Ltd., brought a motion in a proposed securities class action to add the defendant's underwriters (Cormark Securities Inc. and Dundee Securities Limited) as party defendants following the original defendant's bankruptcy.

The plaintiff sought to assert five claims: primary market statutory, secondary market statutory, common law negligence, common law negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

The court granted leave to add the underwriters for the common law negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims, finding them tenable.

However, the primary market statutory claim was time-barred, and the secondary market statutory claim was untenable as underwriters were not considered "experts" under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

The unjust enrichment claim was also dismissed as legally untenable due to a valid contractual basis for fees and the principle against shareholder derivative actions for corporate wrongs.