George Michael Pakozdi

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of three decisions arising from a single summary judgment motion regarding the status of a disputed portion of a road ("Road A") in the Township of Coleman.

The appellants sought a declaration that the road was a public, common, or access road to facilitate subdivision approval and claimed damages for alleged municipal misfeasance.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s use of partial summary judgment, nor in his findings that the road was neither a public nor common road.

The court also dismissed motions to admit fresh evidence and denied leave to appeal the costs order.

The appellant, Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, appealed the dismissal of her defamation, conspiracy, and negligence claims against four defendants (Dr. Angus Maciver, André Picard, Carly Weeks, and Alheli Picazo) under Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act), and the associated costs order totaling over $1.1 million.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the claims were strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).

The court affirmed that the "fair comment" defence was prima facie available to Picard, Weeks, and Picazo, and that the appellant failed to demonstrate "serious harm" causally linked to the defendants' expressions, which would outweigh the public interest in protecting free expression.

The court also upheld the substantial indemnity costs award, distinguishing the case from general guidance due to its complexity and the number of defendants.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellant, Everest Finance Corporation, successfully varied the judgment below to increase awarded amounts.

The appellant sought full indemnity costs of $15,187.15 based on a mortgage term.

The respondents did not file submissions.

The Court of Appeal granted the full indemnity costs, affirming that contractual provisions for costs actually expended are generally enforced absent misconduct or unfairness.

Everest Finance Corporation appealed a motion judge's decision that, while granting summary judgment for mortgage arrears, reduced the amount of interest and costs owed by the respondents.

The motion judge had reduced the interest arrears from $63,010.50 to $20,000 and costs from $34,846.85 to $20,000, attributing the reduction to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and exercising discretion.

The Court of Appeal found no legal basis for a court to reduce contractual interest or full indemnity costs due to court system delays or a general sense of fairness, stating that judicial discretion in costs does not extend to altering contractual terms.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment was varied to restore the full amounts of interest and costs sought by the appellant.

The Plaintiffs (UDG) sought an anti-suit injunction to halt proceedings against them in Dubai and Singapore concerning an alleged outstanding debt and guarantees.

The Defendants (TAP) cross-moved to dismiss or stay the Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens, citing forum selection clauses.

The court denied the anti-suit injunction, finding UDG failed to meet the Amchem test, particularly by not pursuing stays in the foreign jurisdictions.

The court also found Ontario was not the natural forum, given the parties' residences, witness locations, and applicable foreign laws.

The Plaintiffs' Ontario action was permanently stayed.

The moving party sought reconsideration of the Court of Appeal's decision denying leave to appeal from a Divisional Court decision that upheld a Small Claims Court judgment in favor of the responding party for basement flooding damages.

The moving party relied on alleged fresh evidence and allegations of fraud.

The Court declined to admit the fresh evidence as it failed to satisfy the Palmer test, finding that most matters were dealt with at trial and the evidence was not reasonably capable of affecting the result.

The Court dismissed the motion for reconsideration, finding no basis to vary its earlier order.

The Court also granted an order prohibiting the moving party from bringing further motions without leave, finding the motion to be vexatious and an abuse of process.

The moving party sought a stay of proceedings pursuant to rule 63.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure pending a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeal's dismissal of her motion for leave to appeal.

The underlying dispute involved a Small Claims Court judgment awarding damages to the respondent for flooding allegedly caused by the moving party's disconnected downspout.

The moving party appealed to the Divisional Court, which dismissed her appeal.

She then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed with costs.

The moving party subsequently sought a stay of enforcement of the judgment, claiming fresh evidence had been discovered.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the moving party had not met the test for a stay and was attempting to re-litigate factual issues already decided at trial.