3 total
Leave to appeal denied in CCAA proceeding regarding insurer's obligation to pay directors' legal fees.
The applicant insurer sought leave to appeal an order requiring it to pay the legal fees of Nortel's executives without reference to a $10 million retention amount or a directors and officers trust fund.
The motion judge had found that the indemnification was a pre-filing claim subject to the CCAA stay, and that allowing access to the trust would improperly elevate the insurer's priority.
The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding the motion judge's conclusions were within his expertise and entitled to deference, and the issues were specific to the case rather than of broader interest.
The Court also declined to consider fresh evidence filed by the applicant because no motion for leave to admit it was brought.
Successful defendants awarded full partial indemnity costs after summary judgment dismissal.
Following summary judgment dismissing two civil actions related to a proposed wind project, the successful defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded due to alleged novelty of the legal issues, broader public importance, assistance to future litigants, alleged reliance on unsworn materials, and the plaintiffs’ financial hardship.
The court rejected these submissions, holding that the claims were premature and unsupported by the evidentiary record, and that none of the factors justified departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event.
The court emphasized that unsuccessful litigants cannot avoid costs merely because their claims may generate guidance for future cases.
Costs were awarded as claimed by the defendants.
Premature tort claims over proposed wind project dismissed on summary judgment.
Neighbouring landowners brought actions seeking damages and injunctive relief arising from a proposed wind turbine development, alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass, and strict liability based on anticipated noise, health impacts, and property value loss.
The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims on the basis that the project had not yet received regulatory approval and had not been constructed.
The court held that the claims were premature because the alleged harms were speculative and no actionable tort had yet occurred.
Pure economic loss arising from public concern about a proposed development was not compensable absent proof of tortious conduct.
The plaintiffs also failed to meet the threshold for a quia timet injunction because there was no high probability that the alleged harms would occur given the ongoing regulatory approval process.
