Gordon Killeen

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The court made no order as to the costs of the motion before the motion judge, as no submissions were made and the issue was not raised at the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court's costs order was maintained.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $10,000 each for the MFP respondents and the Bondy Riley respondents, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant husband appealed an order requiring him to pay an equalization payment representing half of the damages he was awarded for loss of income in a motor vehicle accident.

The husband argued the trial judge erred by valuing the claim based on the undefended personal injury judgment rather than expert evidence of its lower value at the date of separation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the husband could not dispute the value he attributed to the claim in the personal injury action by presenting different evidence in the matrimonial proceedings to reduce his equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement regarding costs following an appeal.

The respondents were awarded costs of $10,000 against the appellant Wyndham Street Investments Inc. Although the appellant City of Guelph achieved success on the appeal, the court found its conduct played a key role in fostering the dispute.

Consequently, the City was awarded reduced costs of $3,000 against the respondents.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that no binding agreement was reached between the parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was open to the trial judge to find that the tenant's identity was a material issue and that the parties did not reach a consensus ad idem on that essential issue.

Costs were awarded to the respondents in the amount of $5,000.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to strike out his claims against the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario and the Crown defendants.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the claim against the Association was properly struck out.

The Court also found that the claim against the Crown defendants did not make out a cause of action outside the reach of s. 7(1) of the Public Authorities Protection Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.