4 total
Motion granted appointing former Chief as representative plaintiff for Algonquins in harvesting rights dispute.
The plaintiffs brought a motion for a representation order under Rule 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to appoint Chief Kirby Whiteduck to represent the 'Algonquins' in an action challenging Ontario's decision to grant harvesting rights to two Métis communities in a settlement area currently under treaty negotiation.
The Métis Nation opposed the motion, arguing the class was insufficiently defined and the proposed representative lacked authority.
The court found that the class of collective rights holders was sufficiently defined, the claim was collective in nature, and the balance of convenience favoured appointing the proposed representative.
The motion was granted.
Costs of legal fee assessment awarded on partial indemnity scale with significant reductions for absent retainer agreement.
Following an assessment hearing where the applicant law firm successfully proved the respondent corporation was its client and owed outstanding legal fees, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.
The court found that the respondent's defence was arguable and that the applicant shared responsibility for the dispute by failing to obtain a written retainer agreement.
The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, significantly reducing the claimed hours and travel disbursements to reflect what would have been reasonable had a standard retainer agreement been in place.
Court refused to set aside assessment order and allowed correction of respondent’s name.
The respondent brought motions seeking to dismiss an order permitting the assessment of a law firm's accounts, arguing there was no evidence of a retainer and that the assessment process was unavailable because some work involved a patent agent.
The court held the respondent failed to establish that no retainer existed and found the documentary evidence ambiguous without supporting evidence from the respondent’s principal.
The court further held that services performed by a patent agent under the supervision of a law firm may fall within assessable legal services.
The applicant’s motion to amend the respondent’s name in the order due to misnomer was granted.
The respondent’s motions were dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; res judicata bars second action arising from same business relationship as prior Small Claims claim.
The appellants brought an action seeking millions of dollars against the respondent, following a prior Small Claims Court action where they recovered approximately $6,000.
The motion judge dismissed the second action on the basis of res judicata, finding that both claims arose out of the same business relationship and the claims could have been brought in the first action.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, rejecting the appellants' argument that fairness considerations should prevent the application of res judicata.
