E. Machado

In an addendum on costs following prior motion reasons, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs payable by the unsuccessful defendants.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs of $30,336, while the responding defendants argued for no costs or reduced partial indemnity costs.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, Rule 57.01(1), proportionality, and the fair-and-reasonable standard, the court rejected substantial indemnity as unwarranted in the circumstances.

After considering mixed success, conduct that unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding, and reasonableness of quantum, the court fixed all-inclusive partial indemnity costs at $20,000 payable within 30 days.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the Crown and its witnesses to answer questions refused during cross-examinations.

The examinations related to the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the action for abuse of process, based on an alleged secret agreement between the Crown and a co-defendant.

The court ordered the Crown and the witnesses to answer the questions and produce the requested documents, finding them relevant to the abuse of process allegations.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the production of a Cooperation and Common Interest Agreement between the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought the agreement to support their argument that the defendants mounted a joint defence, which would affect the apportionment of costs following summary judgment motions.

After reviewing the agreement in camera, the court dismissed the motion, finding that the document was protected by privilege.

The plaintiffs, standardbred horse breeders, sued Ontario and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation following the cancellation of the Slots at Racetrack Program (SARP).

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, and the plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment on liability.

The court held that the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA) retroactively extinguished the plaintiffs' tort claims because the cancellation of SARP was a policy decision made in good faith.

However, the court found that the 1998 Letter of Intent establishing SARP was a binding contract.

Applying the principled exception to the doctrine of privity, the court held that the plaintiffs had standing to enforce the contract.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs against Ontario for breach of contract, finding that Ontario breached an implied term to provide reasonable notice of termination.

The action against OLG was dismissed.