Glynnis Danielle MacDonald Hawe

This costs endorsement followed a decision on an appeal and cross-appeal.

Given the divided success of the parties on both the appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The appellants, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and CIBC Mellon Global Securities Services Company, sought an order staying a lower court judgment pending appeal.

They argued that the application judge's amendments to his reasons for judgment created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The motion judge, Lauwers J.A., dismissed the motion, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate a real likelihood or probability of bias.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) and the overarching interests of justice, concluding that a stay was not warranted.

Leave was granted to file a Supplementary Notice of Appeal.

The Respondents brought a motion seeking the recusal of the presiding judge and a declaration of mistrial, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The allegations stemmed from the judge's conduct and rulings in three prior decisions related to the ongoing application, specifically claiming predisposition towards the Applicant, disparagement of the Respondents, and insinuation into the appeal process.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding that, when viewed realistically and in full context, the judge's actions did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The decision emphasized that adverse rulings, even if potentially erroneous, do not equate to bias and should be addressed through the appeal process.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant.

The appellants moved to expedite their appeal of a liability decision and to be relieved from filing a formal order, arguing that an early appeal could render a subsequent damages trial unnecessary.

The respondent opposed, contending that the appeal should not be scheduled until the damages trial was adjudicated, allowing for a single, comprehensive appeal.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the principle of judicial economy and the ordinary practice of pursuing a single appeal encompassing both liability and damages.

The court found that fragmenting the appeal would likely delay the overall administration of justice and that any potential costs thrown away could be addressed in a costs award.

The plaintiff, Ryan Dean, a self-represented litigant, sought $25 million in damages against numerous defendants, including the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) and several registered immigration consultants (Complainant Defendants), following his removal from the ICCRC board of directors.

The Complainant Defendants moved to strike Dean's claim for unlawful means conspiracy, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court found that Dean failed to plead any unlawful conduct by the Complainant Defendants, as filing complaints with a regulator is a lawful act and not unlawful per se.

The claim also lacked essential elements of conspiracy, such as a clear agreement and purpose.

The court dismissed Dean's claim against the Complainant Defendants and denied leave to amend, as any new cause of action would be time-barred.

The appellants sought review of a chambers order dismissing their request to file a 60-page factum in an appeal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the chambers judge's decision, finding no error in requiring compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, which limit factums to 30 pages except in exceptional circumstances.

The court found no exceptional circumstances present and determined the appellants could adequately address the relevant issues within the 30-page limit, noting their statement of facts was not sufficiently concise.

The appellants, current and former uniform members of the Waterloo Regional Police Service, appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing their proposed class action for want of jurisdiction and denying certification.

The appellants alleged systemic gender-based workplace discrimination and harassment, including breach of Charter rights and breach of the duty of fair representation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the appellants' claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators under the Police Services Act and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court noted that the collective agreement permits group grievances and arbitrators possess broad remedial powers.

The applicant, Muhammad Watto, and two corporations he controlled, brought two applications.

The first sought a declaration of oppression against the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council for revoking approval of continuing professional development programs.

The second sought the appointment of an inspector to investigate the Regulatory Council's affairs.

The court dismissed both applications, finding no proven oppression and no demonstrated need for an inspector, as the applicant lacked standing for the oppression claim regarding the corporations and failed to establish a prima facie case for an investigation.

The applicants sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent regulatory body from revoking their status as approved providers of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programs.

The court applied the tripartite test for injunctions, noting the higher standard for mandatory injunctions (strong prima facie case).

The court found no strong prima facie case, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience did not favor granting the injunction, particularly given the applicant's history of vexatious allegations against the respondent and the availability of other income sources.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, current and former female police officers, sought to certify a class action against the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board and Association for systemic gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment.

The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that labour arbitrators and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario had exclusive jurisdiction.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction, as the claims arose from the employment relationship governed by a collective agreement and the Police Services Act, which provide a comprehensive dispute resolution scheme.

Furthermore, the court determined that even if it had jurisdiction, the claims did not disclose a viable cause of action under common law, as human rights legislation precludes independent civil actions for discrimination and sexual harassment.