Geoff R. Hall

The court issued a costs endorsement following motions for a stay of proceedings, a certificate of pending litigation (CPL), and the appointment of an arbitrator.

The defendants had sought a stay, which was granted permanently for one defendant and temporarily for the other, while the plaintiff successfully obtained a CPL.

Finding divided success on the stay motion, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs for that motion.

However, as the plaintiff was successful on the CPL motion, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $35,000 all-inclusive.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions related to a Mareva injunction in a class proceeding concerning the 'Freedom Convoy' funds.

The court extended the Mareva injunction with modifications, adjourned motions to dissolve the injunction and amend the statement of claim, and granted a Toronto Dominion Bank interpleader motion to transfer funds to an escrow agent.

The decision also clarified the interplay between the civil Mareva injunction and criminal restraint orders, and addressed issues concerning cryptocurrency seized by police and funds held by a third-party fundraising platform, GiveSendGo LLC.

The court emphasized the importance of keeping separate proceedings distinct while managing related matters.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend an ex parte Mareva injunction previously granted against organizers and funders of the Freedom Convoy.

The injunction aimed to restrain the dissipation of assets for potential civil liability to Ottawa residents and businesses.

The court granted a temporary extension and modification of the injunction by consent, allowing certain funds to be transferred to an escrow agent, and adjourned the motion for a further hearing.

The decision emphasized the civil nature of the proceeding, separate from criminal processes.

This is a costs endorsement following a come-back motion concerning ex parte injunctions.

The applicant successfully continued a Family Law Act preservation order against her former spouse but failed to continue a Mareva order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The court determined costs based on divided success, reasonableness of conduct, and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant costs against the former spouse and the other respondents costs against the applicant, with deferred payment terms for the applicant.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $15,000 in costs to the responding parties.

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that the respondent landlord acted in bad faith by unreasonably withholding consent to an indirect change of control under a commercial lease.

The landlord demanded a payment of over $5.8 million to grant consent, relying on lease provisions regarding transfers.

The court found that the landlord had already received compensation for the transfer in a previous proceeding and that demanding an exorbitant fee for a change of control that caused no operational prejudice was not in good faith.

The application was granted, and the landlord was ordered to provide consent, limited to the $75,000 processing fee already paid.

The applicant brought a motion to continue an ex parte FLA Preservation Order against her former spouse and a Mareva Order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The applicant alleged that the respondent spouse had dissipated tens of millions of dollars from the sale of a business to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found a serious issue to be tried and continued the FLA Preservation Order against the respondent spouse to prevent further depletion of his remaining assets.

However, the court dissolved the Mareva Order against the family members and affiliates, finding no demonstrated risk that they would remove or dissipate the assets from the jurisdiction.

The appellant sought to overturn a trial judge's decision, arguing an error in failing to incorporate a rectification analysis and a finding that the appellant did not misunderstand the marriage contract.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate a misunderstanding of the contract, thereby precluding any remedy in rectification.

The appeal was dismissed.

The joint liquidators of Stanford International Bank (SIB) and a group of investors brought actions against TD Bank, SIB's primary U.S. dollar correspondent bank, for knowing assistance in breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

The plaintiffs alleged that TD Bank should have detected and prevented the massive Ponzi scheme orchestrated by SIB's owner, Allen Stanford.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the actions, finding that TD Bank had no actual knowledge of the fraud and was not reckless or wilfully blind.

The court also held that TD Bank did not owe a novel duty of care to protect its customer from insider abuse, and even if it did, it met the standard of care of a reasonable banker during the relevant period.

The defendant successfully moved to strike the plaintiff's jury notice and sought costs of $80,461.65 on a substantial indemnity basis or $61,175.38 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs of $15,000.

The court rejected the defendant's request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff did not act unreasonably in refusing to withdraw its jury notice despite the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and the expectations of the parties, the court fixed the defendant's costs at $42,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's jury notice in an action arising from a tender process for the refurbishment of a nuclear reactor.

AECL argued the case was too complex for a jury, that a jury trial against a federal Crown agent is prohibited by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA), and that the plaintiff sought equitable relief.

The court granted the motion, finding that the factual and legal issues were too complex for a jury and that section 26 of the CLPA applies to AECL, prohibiting a jury trial.

The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff was seeking equitable relief.

The appellant utility company appealed an Ontario Energy Board decision allocating 38% of Future Tax Savings to ratepayers.

The savings arose from a departure tax paid by the appellant when the Province sold shares in its parent company.

A Review Panel had previously found the original allocation flawed because the departure tax was a real cost borne by the utility, not ratepayers, and directed a rehearing.

The Rehearing Panel upheld the original allocation by applying a reasonableness standard rather than reconsidering the matter.

The Divisional Court held the Rehearing Panel erred in law by applying the wrong test, quashed the decision, and remitted the matter to a new panel with directions to apply the 'benefits follow costs' principle, meaning the tax savings should benefit the shareholders who bore the cost.

The appellant, CIBC World Markets Inc., appealed a trial judgment that found it liable for trading losses incurred by the respondents, Montrose Hammond & Co. and The Raillery Fund LP, due to the negligence of Belzberg Technologies Inc.'s employees.

CIBC argued the trial judge erred in interpreting exclusion clauses in their contract and in finding Belzberg to be CIBC's apparent agent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's interpretation that the exclusion clauses did not apply to the circumstances and that Belzberg acted as CIBC's apparent agent, leading to the respondents' detriment.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a professional liability claim where the plaintiffs sought over $16 million in damages but were ultimately awarded only $2,000 in nominal damages for breaches of fiduciary duty by the defendants.

The court determined that the defendants were the successful parties, having largely resisted the substantial monetary claim.

Despite findings of serious fiduciary duty breaches against the defendants (a law firm and a former in-house counsel), the court awarded costs to the defendants, but reduced the quantum by over 25% to $925,000 to reflect the seriousness of their misconduct.

In a costs decision following a professional liability trial, the court determined that the defendants were the successful parties despite findings that they breached their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs had sought over $16 million in damages but were only awarded $2,000 in nominal damages.

The court found the defendants' claimed costs of $1,261,235 to be reasonable, but reduced the award by 25% to reflect the court's finding of breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $925,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The Ryerson Students' Union (RSU) moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Ryerson University from terminating an operating agreement and to compel the release of withheld student fees.

The University had terminated the agreement citing financial mismanagement by a previous RSU executive.

The court found that the RSU had taken prompt corrective actions, establishing a strong prima facie case that it had not repudiated the agreement.

The withholding of fees constituted irreparable harm, as it would force the RSU to cease operations.

The balance of convenience favored the RSU, as the University's proposed new governance process was initiated after the RSU's claim and its arguments regarding financial control were not substantiated.

The motion was allowed, ordering the University to comply with the agreement and release the funds.

The plaintiffs, two major banks, sued to recover funds wired to the defendant money services business as a result of a fraud perpetrated by third parties.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing it received the funds without knowledge of the fraud and changed its position in good faith by arranging equivalent payments in Chinese yuan to a foreign account.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the defendant actually changed its position in good faith, given conflicting expert evidence on its anti-money laundering compliance and the lack of direct evidence regarding the foreign exchange transactions.

The plaintiffs sued their former law firm and former in-house counsel for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from a commercial transaction and subsequent settlement.

The court found that the former in-house counsel breached his fiduciary duty by acting for the opposing party at a mediation, and that the law firm breached its standard of care by failing to warn the plaintiffs of this conflict.

The court also found the law firm breached its fiduciary duty by obtaining an ineffective conflict waiver.

However, the court concluded that these breaches did not cause the plaintiffs' claimed business losses, as the plaintiffs would have settled regardless and suffered no loss of chance.

The court awarded nominal damages of $2,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for $1,326,491.18 in unpaid fees for e-commerce services provided to the defendant.

The defendant argued the motion was premature and raised a counterclaim for equitable set-off, alleging the plaintiff induced a related entity to breach an inspection rights agreement.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the defendant failed to put its best foot forward or provide evidence of inducement.

Summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

An international sale of goods dispute involving the purchase and delivery of frozen shrimp under a CIF contract.

The seller sought payment of the purchase price after the buyer refused to accept and pay for goods that could not clear Mexican customs.

The buyer argued the seller failed to provide proper import documentation and that the seller had a duty to mitigate by reselling the goods.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's judgment for the full purchase price plus prejudgment interest at the contractual rate of 8%, finding that the duty to mitigate under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods does not apply to actions for the price under Article 62, and that even if it did apply, the seller had taken reasonable mitigation measures given that the buyer retained title and possession of the goods.