Glen M. Perinot

Following the dismissal of actions and the granting of summary judgment to casino operators and a gaming regulator, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs had claimed approximately $14 million alleging illegality in casino roulette operations and unjust enrichment.

The court held that partial indemnity was the appropriate scale, rejecting claims for substantial indemnity and also declining the plaintiffs’ submission that no costs should be awarded due to alleged illegality.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and appellate guidance on reasonable and proportionate costs, the court fixed reduced lump-sum costs awards.

The casino defendants were awarded $110,000 and the regulator $60,000.

Multiple plaintiffs who were high-limit roulette players alleged that a casino operated illegal roulette games by allowing dealers to remove “floating balls” before they landed in a numbered slot, contrary to approved rules of play under Ontario gaming regulations.

They sought $7.5 million in damages and restitution of approximately $2.1 million lost gambling, asserting tort, contract, statutory misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the actions and enforcing unpaid gambling loans.

The court held that even if the “floating ball” practice was not an approved rule of play and could have rendered certain spins unlawful, the unjust enrichment claim failed because the casino returned all wagers whenever a spin was stopped, meaning there was no enrichment and no corresponding deprivation.

With no viable damages evidence and no triable issues, summary judgment was granted and the defendants also succeeded on their collection counterclaims.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred by refusing an adjournment, refusing to admit his version of a contract, and refusing to admit hearsay witness statements.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in denying the adjournment due to a lack of medical evidence, properly excluded the illegible and altered contract documents, and reasonably exercised his discretion under section 27(1) of the Courts of Justice Act to exclude the hearsay statements.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought to set aside an Order to Continue and an assignment of a Small Claims Court judgment to the responding party, a disbarred lawyer.

The moving party argued the assignment was champertous and a sham designed to allow the responding party to act as an agent in the Divisional Court appeal.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the assignment of a judgment debt is not champerty, as it does not stir up litigation.

The court also found the assignment was supported by valid consideration and was not an abuse of process.

The appellant employer appealed a wrongful dismissal decision awarding the respondent 24 months' severance and two months' Wallace damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent was a 23-year employee despite a two-year gap for maternity reasons.

However, applying Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, the Court set aside the Wallace damages because the respondent's mental distress did not qualify for compensatory damages.

The Court also corrected a double-counting error regarding Employment Standards Act severance pay.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application.

The respondent conceded that there were no issues of res judicata or issue estoppel arising from the lower court's decision.

The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellants were pursuing similar claims in a separate action and there was no basis to continue both proceedings.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant franchisor and respondent franchisee entered into two consecutive franchise agreements.

The franchisee rescinded the second agreement under the Arthur Wishart Act due to the franchisor's failure to provide a disclosure document, and brought an action for rescission and damages.

The franchisor moved to stay the action based on an arbitration clause in the agreements.

The motion judge dismissed the stay motion and granted partial summary judgment for rescission.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the claims fell within the arbitration clause and that the failure to provide a disclosure document did not render the arbitration agreement invalid under the Arbitration Act.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and the action stayed.