James Cameron

This endorsement addresses the costs of motions where the defendants successfully dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to amend their statement of claim and granted the defendants' motion to strike numerous paragraphs from the statement of claim and reply.

The defendants sought $16,641.06 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the amount was unreasonable and disproportionate, proposing $5,000.00.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Boucher, found the defendants' claimed time excessive due to inferred overlap between counsel.

The court fixed costs at $12,000.00, inclusive of tax and disbursements, payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim following a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that largely barred their claims against the defendants under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike out paragraphs of the original statement of claim and reply that were inconsistent with the WSIAT decision, as well as allegations related to surveillance and Human Rights Code breaches.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to amend, finding the proposed amendments were statute-barred or otherwise untenable.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike, ruling that the WSIAT decision was final and binding, that the intentional infliction of mental suffering claim related to surveillance was inadequately pleaded, and that the Human Rights Code claims were either barred by WSIAT or could not stand alone.

This appeal considered whether actuarial surpluses recorded in federal public-sector superannuation accounts were assets in which plan members held legal or equitable interests.

The Court held the accounts were statutory accounting records tracking Consolidated Revenue Fund transactions, not segregated asset pools.

It rejected claims based on proprietary entitlement, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and alleged expropriation.

The Court further held the statutory amendments authorized debiting surplus amounts and did not require compensation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.