Jean-Marc Leclerc

The appellants and the Law Foundation of Ontario sought leave to appeal costs orders made by the case management judge following the dismissal of several proposed class actions against automobile insurers.

The motion judge had awarded costs to the successful insurers, including substantial indemnity costs where the plaintiffs persisted with unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and deceit to overcome limitation periods.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding entitlement or scale of costs.

The appellants appealed an order striking their third party claim and counterclaim under Rule 21, except for a claim alleging tortious conduct to usurp corporate control.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the claims, including a claim for breach of an implied term of a Side Agreement, noting that on a Rule 21 motion, pleadings must be taken as true and the motion judge erred by relying on an absence of evidence.

The cross-appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision refusing a proposed amendment to pleadings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Master that it was plain and obvious the facts could not support a finding of fiduciary duty, as the hallmarks of a fiduciary relationship were not present.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondents.