4 total
Aboriginal protest spokesperson found in civil contempt for railway blockade and ordered to pay $16,584.87 in costs.
The plaintiff brought a motion for civil contempt against the respondent for his participation as a spokesperson in a railway blockade, in defiance of an injunction.
The respondent admitted knowledge of the order and his continued participation, leading to a finding of contempt.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the court declined to issue a continuing restraining order, noting the respondent had helped dismantle the blockade.
Applying principles for aboriginal contemnors and costs rules, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $16,584.87 to the plaintiff.
Motion for extensive disclosure in civil contempt proceeding dismissed as an impermissible collateral attack on the underlying injunction.
The alleged contemnor, Ron Plain, brought a motion for extensive disclosure in a civil contempt proceeding arising from a railway blockade.
He sought the disclosure to mount a novel Charter challenge and collateral attack against the underlying injunction.
The court dismissed the motion, holding that a collateral attack on a valid court order is not permitted in contempt proceedings.
Furthermore, applying a contextual approach to civil contempt, the court found that the extensive disclosure sought was not necessary, particularly given that the applicant sought only costs as a sanction.
Successful defendants in uncertified class action appeal awarded modified partial indemnity costs of $20,000 each.
The defendants, eight major financial institutions, successfully defended an appeal of a decision denying certification of a class action regarding mortgage contracts.
The defendants sought their costs of the appeal.
The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded, asserting the proceeding was a test case and involved a matter of public interest under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.
The Divisional Court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding the case was not a test case, did not raise a novel point of law, and was not a matter of public interest, but rather involved individual commercial mortgage contracts.
The court awarded the defendants modified partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000 per defendant.
Appeal from refusal to certify eight mortgage prepayment class actions dismissed due to overwhelming individual issues.
The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motions to certify eight separate class proceedings against various financial institutions.
The claims alleged that the respondents incorrectly interpreted mortgage provisions regarding partial prepayment rights and early discharge penalties.
The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action as they relied on implied terms not supported by the express language of the mortgages.
The court also agreed that the proposed classes were overly broad, individual issues overwhelmed any common issues, and a class proceeding would be unmanageable and not the preferable procedure.
