7 total
Reckless allegations of dishonesty justified substantial indemnity costs against unsuccessful charity.
Following earlier reasons granting relief in a dispute involving charitable corporations and trust‑like obligations over charitable assets, the successful applicants sought substantial indemnity costs against the respondent foundation.
The court considered allegations that the respondent had advanced reckless and unfounded accusations of dishonesty, breach of trust, and misappropriation during the proceedings.
It also reviewed the applicants’ unaccepted Rule 49 offer to settle and the complexity and importance of the litigation concerning charitable corporations, fiduciary duties, and the Charities Accounting Act.
The court concluded that the respondent’s conduct, including unsupported allegations and misrepresentations of fact, justified an award of substantial indemnity costs.
Costs of $454,686.19 were awarded to the applicants, and additional costs were awarded to the Public Guardian and Trustee.
Cross-appeal dismissed; Divisional Court's interpretation of s. 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act upheld.
The appellant appealed and the respondent cross-appealed an order of the Divisional Court.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the Divisional Court's interpretation of s. 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and found no merit in the other grounds raised on the cross-appeal, including the costs order imposed by the Tribunal.
The cross-appeal was dismissed with no costs.
Divisional Court erred by substituting penalty without reasons; matter remitted to Tribunal for penalty assessment.
The Superintendent of Financial Services appealed a Divisional Court order that vacated a Tribunal's revocation of Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc.'s licence and substituted a lesser penalty with terms.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the Tribunal erred by not allowing Sussman to make penalty submissions, but found the Divisional Court erred in law by failing to provide reasons for substituting the penalty.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, remitting the matter to a differently constituted Tribunal to assess the penalty based on the original findings of conduct.
Appeal on merits dismissed but licence revocation set aside and replaced with conditions due to procedural unfairness.
The appellant appealed a Tribunal decision finding breaches of the Mortgage Brokers Act and revoking its licence.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no breach of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, ample evidence of regulatory breaches, and no apprehension of bias.
However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the penalty, finding the Tribunal erred in law by imposing licence revocation without allowing submissions on penalty, considering alternatives, or reviewing similar cases.
The revocation order was set aside and replaced with conditions on the appellant's licence.
Applicant ordered to pay $15,000 in costs for unreasonably prolonging regulatory proceedings with unsubstantiated allegations.
The Financial Services Tribunal previously directed the Superintendent to carry out a Notice of Proposal regarding the applicant's registration under the Mortgage Brokers Act.
In this costs decision, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay $15,000 in costs to the Superintendent.
The Tribunal found that the applicant unreasonably prolonged the proceedings by making unsubstantiated allegations of bad faith against the Superintendent's staff and introducing irrelevant matters.
Tribunal directs revocation of mortgage broker's registration due to protracted non-compliance and failure to produce records.
The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. (SMFI) as a mortgage broker.
SMFI requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the principals of SMFI engaged in a protracted pattern of conduct to hide or withhold information from the Superintendent, failed to comply with trust fund administration requirements, and operated an unregistered related company as a mortgage broker.
Concluding that the past conduct of the principals afforded reasonable grounds for belief that SMFI would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke SMFI's registration.
Successful appellants received appeal costs and one recovered assessed trial costs.
This was a costs endorsement following a civil appeal in which one appellant was fully successful and another reduced its liability to 20 percent of the plaintiffs’ damages.
The court applied the usual rule that costs follow the event, awarded the successful appellant its assessed trial costs against the plaintiffs, and upheld the trial judge’s costs award against the partially successful appellant despite the modest damages award and absence of a Rule 49 offer.
The court declined to make either a Bullock or Sanderson order.
Both appellants were awarded their party-and-party costs of the appeal.
