James A. Manson

This costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario addresses the allocation and quantum of costs following the respondents' success in opposing the appeal.

The court fixes costs at $20,000, apportioned 90% to the group represented by Manson and Fleury, and 10% to the group represented by Overwater, to be paid within 30 days.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to halt a proposed class proceeding by downtown Ottawa residents and businesses against "Freedom Convoy" protestors, organizers, and funders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs demonstrated grounds to believe their claims had substantial merit and that no valid defence was likely to prevail, and that the public interest in allowing the litigation to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) appealed a motion judge's order requiring it to pay $156,461.99 in costs following an unsuccessful interlocutory injunction motion brought by students against Seneca College's COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Court of Appeal found the costs order fundamentally flawed because the motion judge failed to determine if the litigation was public interest litigation and did not apply the correct legal tests for awarding costs against a non-party (the "person of straw" test or abuse of process).

The Court clarified that fundraising or promoting a case on a website does not constitute abuse of process.

The Court also stated that JCCF's refusal to disclose whether it was indemnifying the students was a relevant consideration for costs.

The appeal was allowed, the costs order set aside, and the matter remitted to the motion judge for a fresh determination.

This is a case management order in a class action concerning the scheduling of an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, seeking to stay or dismiss the action for unduly limiting freedom of expression.

The court set a timetable for the anti-SLAPP motion, making it returnable on October 11, 2023, and ordered that no further steps in the proceeding could be taken until this motion was resolved, in accordance with the Act.

A potential motion for change of venue was also noted but deferred.

This endorsement addresses costs submissions following a decision on competing pleading motions in a class action.

The plaintiffs were substantially successful in their motion to amend pleadings, while the defendants' parallel motion to strike was largely unsuccessful.

Despite the plaintiffs' success, the court declined to award costs to either party, citing the public importance of the litigation, which involves exploring the boundaries of constitutionally protected protest rights versus the rights of individual citizens to seek compensation for disruption.

This motion addressed the form of the Statement of Claim in a proposed class proceeding related to the "Freedom Convoy" protest in Ottawa.

The plaintiffs sought to amend their claim, while a group of defendants moved to strike it.

The court found that the proposed Statement of Claim disclosed plausible causes of action for private and public nuisance, and joint liability, including for punitive damages.

The court largely allowed the plaintiffs' motion to amend, granting leave to issue a further fresh as amended statement of claim and to add new defendants, but ordered the removal of certain paragraphs deemed extraneous, inflammatory, or evidentiary.

The defendants' motion to strike was largely dismissed.

The Crown appealed a lower court's decision to set aside a conviction against Becker Bros.

Trucking Inc. for operating a commercial motor vehicle in an unsafe condition, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal judge had ruled that certified Ministry records and copies of documents produced by the driver were inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal judge erred in both conclusions, holding that the Ministry's certified documents were admissible as "statements" under s. 210(7) of the HTA, and that the documents produced by the driver were admissible under s. 216.1(5) of the HTA or as an exception to the hearsay rule (admissions by documents in possession).

The Court allowed the Crown's appeal, reinstating the conviction and sentence.

The Crown sought leave to appeal a Provincial Offences Act decision.

The respondent argued that the motion for leave to appeal should be heard in writing, relying on the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court, acting as a case management judge, determined that motions for leave to appeal under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act are presumed to be heard orally, consistent with the settled practice of the Court of Appeal.

The court found that while the Rules of the Court of Appeal in Appeals Under the Provincial Offences Act (POA Rules) did not explicitly state an oral hearing for represented parties, the language used in Rule 3 and Form 1 implied an oral hearing.

The court also clarified that Rule 61.03.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies to fill the gap regarding the exchange of facta.

The Plaintiff sought summary judgment for $322,343.30 for unpaid invoices.

The Defendant argued the motion was premature, citing contentious accounting and factual issues requiring further discovery and evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the evidentiary record inadequate and that genuine issues of fact and credibility, particularly concerning invoicing practices, payment offsets, and product rebates, necessitated a trial.

The court also declined to grant leave to amend the Statement of Claim due to the absence of a proper supporting record and the need for the claim to be clearly defined within the pleadings.

The plaintiff moved for a status hearing, seeking a timetable and an extension to set the matter down for trial.

The court found the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for delay, including settlement discussions and other motions, and that the defendant would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

A timetable was imposed, extending the deadline to set the action down for trial.

However, the court also ordered the plaintiff to pay two substantial outstanding costs orders totaling approximately $55,000 by a specified date, failing which the defendant could seek an order dismissing the action without notice.

No costs were awarded for the current motion.

The law firm Chitiz Pathak LLP appealed a Master's decision that found "special circumstances" existed to allow Bee Vectoring Technology Inc. to have two sets of legal accounts assessed under the Solicitors Act, despite being outside the statutory time limits or having been paid.

The Master had found special circumstances for the first and second qualifying transactions but not for general corporate matters.

The law firm argued the Master erred in principle by accepting the client's reasons for delay (being too busy and fear of jeopardizing the relationship) as special circumstances.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the Master's fact-specific inquiry into special circumstances.

The appellant, Broadgrain Commodities Inc., sold sesame seeds to Beidahuang Grain Group Co. Ltd. under a CIF contract.

The goods were damaged during transit.

The appellant obtained marine insurance from the respondent, Continental Casualty Company, but the respondent denied coverage.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the appellant's action, finding that although the appellant had an insurable interest, it sustained no loss as it was paid in full by Beidahuang.

The appellant appealed, arguing it suffered loss through subsequent short-payments from Beidahuang.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the appellant failed to provide any credible evidence of loss and that a self-serving affidavit without supporting documentation was insufficient to create a triable issue.

The Acuity defendants moved for summary judgment in a fire loss claim, arguing no causal connection could be proven between the fire and their light fixtures.

The plaintiff alleged a design defect in the open luminaires led to a metal halide bulb rupture, igniting a tarp.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial on causation, noting conflicting expert evidence and deficiencies in the initial fire investigation due to premature site clearance.

The motion for summary judgment was not granted, but the court directed further oral evidence to be adduced on the causation issue to potentially streamline the lengthy and expensive litigation.

This endorsement addresses a procedural dispute regarding the order of upcoming motions.

The Defendants brought a motion for contempt and other relief, alleging the Plaintiff violated a prior court order.

The Plaintiff, in turn, brought a motion to strike the Defendants' contempt motion, arguing it could not succeed and seeking to avoid being compelled to testify or submit an affidavit in defense of the contempt allegations.

The court agreed with the Plaintiff, ruling that the motion to strike should be heard first, as its success could significantly reduce the need for the Defendants' broader motion and protect the Plaintiff's right not to testify in contempt proceedings.

The Acuity defendants moved for summary judgment and sought to exclude the plaintiff's expert evidence from Vincent Rochon regarding the origin and cause of a warehouse fire.

The defendants argued Rochon was not qualified to opine on electrical code/CSA standards, lacked independence and impartiality due to his prior involvement with the insurer's sister company (REI) and the initial site investigation, showed bias, and presented an unreliable "novel science" theory (ricocheting quartz fragments).

The court found Rochon qualified, willing, and able to fulfill his duty as an expert, and that his ricochet theory was not "novel science" but an application of existing scientific principles.

The motion to exclude Rochon's evidence was dismissed, with the court noting that concerns about the investigation's shortcomings or the plausibility of Rochon's theory could inform the weight of the evidence at the summary judgment motion or trial.