Fiona Campbell

Former students of two residential schools brought a Request for Directions under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement alleging failures in Canada's document disclosure and reporting obligations in the Independent Assessment Process.

After partial success on the merits, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicants sought full indemnity costs exceeding $143,000, while Canada argued for partial indemnity costs in the range of $15,000 to $20,000.

The court held that costs under the IRSSA involve a special discretionary framework reflecting the reconciliation objectives of the settlement agreement.

Balancing success on the motion, litigation conduct, and fairness considerations, the court awarded reduced costs of $78,089.95.

The applicants, former students of St. Anne's and Bishop Horden Indian Residential Schools, brought a Request for Directions asserting that Canada failed to comply with its report writing obligations under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

They sought orders requiring Canada to revise School Narratives and Person of Interest Reports, and to provide unredacted source documents to adjudicators and claimants.

The court found that Canada's updated reports for St. Anne's did not comply with the Agreement and ordered Canada to revise them to include a detailed chart of abuse allegations and corresponding documents.

The court also ordered Canada, on consent, to provide unredacted copies of publicly available court records, but dismissed the request for unredacted copies of other documents, citing privacy safeguards in the Agreement.

The defendants brought a motion seeking leave to issue a third party claim for contribution and indemnity against a non-party alleged to have provided instructions during prior litigation involving the plaintiff.

The court considered the interaction of the Limitations Act, 2002, the Negligence Act, and the Rules of Civil Procedure governing third party claims.

While the proposed claim disclosed an arguable basis for contribution and indemnity, the court held that contribution cannot be sought in respect of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty owed directly by counsel to a client.

Leave was granted to issue the third party claim, but only after amendment removing any claim for contribution or indemnity relating to fiduciary duties.

Service of the third party claim was permitted by publication due to the unknown whereabouts of the proposed third party.

Following a divided outcome on an application regarding taxi licensing by-laws, the intervenor, Taxiworkers Association of Ontario, sought costs against the applicant.

The court denied costs for the intervention and injunction motions because the intervenor was not a necessary party and participated on its own initiative.

However, the court awarded the intervenor $2,500 in costs for the main application, recognizing that its evidence was critical to the court's determination of the notice issue.

Following dismissal of a motion for an injunction seeking to enforce a non‑competition agreement, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party had sought to enjoin former advisors and a financial services firm from operating a competing branch, but failed to establish an enforceable restrictive covenant or a serious issue to be tried.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs.

The court held that one group of defendants was entitled to costs but denied costs to the corporate defendant due to its pre‑litigation conduct, which the court described as outrageous and contributing to the litigation.

Costs of $40,000 inclusive were awarded to the remaining defendants.

The plaintiff sought interlocutory injunctions enforcing non‑competition and non‑solicitation clauses in a 2004 agreement against several financial advisors and a related investment dealer after the advisors opened a competing branch nearby.

The court applied the RJR‑MacDonald test and considered whether the restrictive covenants were reasonable in geographic scope, temporal scope, and scope of prohibited activity.

Although the geographic scope was arguably reasonable and there was a serious issue to be tried regarding temporal scope, the court found the activity restrictions overly broad and therefore unreasonable.

As a result, the plaintiff failed to establish the required strength of case to justify interlocutory injunctive relief.

The balance of convenience also weighed against granting the injunction because a competing branch would operate regardless.

The motion for interlocutory injunctions was dismissed.