Harold Maltz

The respondents were successful in obtaining an order quashing the appellants' appeal on the basis that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court.

The respondents sought costs of $13,788.75, while the self-represented appellants argued for no costs.

The court fixed costs at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements, noting the straightforward nature of the motion and that some prepared materials could be used if the appeal is pursued in the Court of Appeal.

The respondents brought a motion to quash an appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing the appellants' application as an abuse of process.

The appellants argued the appeal belonged in the Divisional Court because the original proceeding was brought under the Business Corporations Act.

The court determined that the 'lynchpin' of the underlying application was a claim for breach of a joint venture agreement, not a corporate remedy.

Consequently, the order appealed from was a final order disposing of contractual claims, meaning the appeal properly lies to the Court of Appeal under section 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion to quash was granted.

The applicants brought a motion to extend the time to deliver a Notice of Appeal and for an interim order that the respondents pay $10 million US pending a reference hearing.

The court dismissed the motion to extend time, finding the applicants filed no evidence to satisfy the test for an extension.

The court also dismissed the request for an interim payment, noting that the applicant had previously sought the same relief multiple times, which had been dismissed as an abuse of process, and that the applicant was subject to an order requiring leave to bring such motions, which had not been obtained.

The moving parties (Dover) sought leave to appeal a costs order made following an 18-day trial of three issues regarding a joint venture dispute.

The trial judge had awarded Dover partial indemnity costs of $120,000 plus disbursements, significantly reducing their claimed fees and expert costs despite Dover's success on the issues.

Dover argued the trial judge erred in applying the principles of proportionality, settlement offers, and in failing to award substantial indemnity costs due to the opposing party's conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle and holding that the trial judge's discretionary costs award was entitled to considerable deference.

The moving parties sought direction on whether a motion for leave to appeal a costs order arising from a trial of an issue in an oppression remedy application should be brought in the Court of Appeal or the Divisional Court, and whether the order was final or interlocutory.

The court determined that the appeal lies to the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 255 of the Business Corporations Act, as the costs order was ancillary to the oppression remedy.

The court also held that the costs order was a final order.

An extension of time to perfect the motion for leave to appeal was granted.

This was a costs endorsement following a four-week trial on three discrete issues in a commercial dispute involving oil field valuation and investor interests.

The successful respondents sought full indemnity costs based on alleged misconduct and offers to settle.

The court rejected full and substantial indemnity costs, holding the conduct allegations did not justify elevated costs and that the respondents' offer was not a technically valid Rule 49 offer because it extended beyond the issues tried.

Exercising discretion, the court nonetheless awarded reduced partial indemnity fees and limited disbursements, including a reduced allowance for certain expert fees.

In supplementary reasons, the court addressed a post-judgment issue concerning currency conversion of previously awarded amounts.

The parties agreed that the amounts identified in two paragraphs of the original reasons should be calculated in US dollars and converted to Canadian dollars using an agreed Bank of Canada exchange rate of 1.166.

The court accepted the parties' consent calculations and amended the judgment accordingly.

The court declined to address other issues raised because they were outside the matters to be decided or constituted further argument on issues already determined.

In long‑running multi‑jurisdictional litigation involving petroleum joint ventures, the respondents brought motions seeking dismissal of a new application, addition of parties to an existing reference proceeding, and a declaration that the opposing party was a vexatious litigant.

The court held that the applicant’s attempt to abandon an earlier oppression application and restart proceedings through a related corporation constituted an abuse of process.

The court set aside the notice of abandonment, dismissed the new application as res judicata, and added the corporation and an additional entity as parties to the reference so that outstanding accounting and valuation issues could proceed.

The request to declare the individual litigant vexatious was denied, although procedural orders were imposed to complete the reference before a Master.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their Rule 59 motion as an abuse of process in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge's thorough reasons and finding the fresh evidence tendered by the appellant to be of no assistance.

Costs of $17,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant conceded that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Because the respondent never raised the question of jurisdiction, the court ordered the matter transferred to the Divisional Court.

Costs thrown away were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $750.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable under a guarantee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that compliance with financial ratios was a condition for the bank's benefit alone, not the guarantors.

Furthermore, a forbearance agreement signed by the appellant removed any challenge to liability under the guarantee.

The applicant brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a judgment pending appeal.

The parties consented to adjourn the motion but disagreed on the costs of the adjournment.

The respondents sought over $63,000 in costs incurred investigating the applicant's transfer of assets to family members, which allegedly rendered him judgment-proof.

The court fixed the costs of the adjournment at $20,000 payable forthwith by the applicant.