3 total
Judicial review of Small Claims Court interlocutory order dismissed as a disguised appeal.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court interlocutory order setting aside a default judgment, alleging breaches of procedural fairness due to the Deputy Judge's failure to hear oral submissions and provide adequate reasons.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had notice and an opportunity to respond in writing, and that the inadequacy of reasons does not constitute a breach of procedural fairness.
The court concluded that the application was essentially a disguised appeal of an interlocutory order, for which no right of appeal exists.
Court fixes substantial indemnity costs against lawyer who caused settlement enforcement motion.
Following dismissal of a motion to enforce an alleged settlement of a personal injury action, the court addressed the quantum of costs payable personally by the plaintiff’s former lawyer whose misleading communications had precipitated the motion.
The court reviewed the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including fairness, reasonableness, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of unsuccessful parties.
Although the successful parties sought higher amounts on a substantial indemnity scale, the court examined comparable settlement‑enforcement motions and determined that the reasonable range was significantly lower.
Costs were fixed at $11,127.20 payable to the plaintiff and $7,781.66 payable to the TTC.
Settlement not enforced where solicitor accepted offer without client authority.
The defendants brought a motion under Rules 20.04 and 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking judgment enforcing a purported settlement allegedly accepted by the plaintiff’s solicitor.
The court found that the solicitor falsely represented that he had instructions to accept the settlement offer and acted without authority from the plaintiff.
The evidence established that the plaintiff had never agreed to the settlement and had not provided instructions directly or indirectly to accept it.
The court further held that it was not reasonable for the defendants to assume that the solicitor had authority to settle without explicit client instructions in light of prior communications.
The motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed, and the plaintiff’s former solicitor was ordered personally to pay the costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity scale under Rule 57.07.
