Jenna Anne de Jong

This decision addresses a costs dispute arising from the plaintiff's initiation of multiple proceedings that were subsequently consolidated.

The defendants, Carleton University and Urban Security and Resilience Corp., sought costs thrown away due to the duplicative actions, arguing the plaintiff could have avoided multiplicity by adding parties to the initial action under Rule 5.04(2).

The plaintiff contended that the defendants' claims for costs were unsubstantiated and that the role of one defendant was an ongoing issue.

The court found that the plaintiff's multiple proceedings were avoidable and awarded each defendant $500 in costs thrown away, payable in any event of the cause, noting that the duplicative nature might also be considered by a Master in future costs assessments.

The defendants, Carleton University and the Steering Committee, brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiff, Wilson, Young & Associates Inc., under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed both motions.

Carleton failed to establish "good reason to believe" the plaintiff had insufficient assets.

While the Steering Committee satisfied the condition of multiple proceedings for the same relief, its motion was dismissed due to undue delay and resulting prejudice to the plaintiff, and lack of a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions to quash two appeals brought by 108 Media Corporation from decisions of an application judge.

The first appeal concerned a refusal to grant leave to appeal from an arbitral award under section 45(1) of the Arbitration Act.

The second appeal concerned a decision recognizing and enforcing the arbitral award dated December 11, 2017.

The court found that no appeal lies from a refusal to grant leave to appeal on the merits and that section 50(3) of the Arbitration Act deprives a judge of jurisdiction to refuse to enforce an arbitral award except in certain circumstances not present here.

Both appeals were quashed and costs were awarded to BGOI Films Inc. on a higher scale due to the appellant's dilatory litigation strategy.

This decision addresses costs following the dismissal of the Applicant's application for leave to appeal an arbitrator's award and the granting of the Respondent's application to recognize and enforce the award.

The Respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, while the Applicant argued for partial indemnity.

The court found the Applicant's litigation strategy, as revealed in a settlement proposal, to be dubious and aimed at prolonging litigation, warranting a sanction.

Consequently, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Respondent, finding it fair and reasonable given the Applicant's conduct and the moderate complexity of the proceedings.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitral award that ordered it to pay a $55,000 minimum guarantee to the respondent under a film distribution agreement.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitration agreement's 'final and binding' clause precluded appeals on questions of law.

Furthermore, the court held that the proposed grounds of appeal were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

The respondent's cross-application to enforce the arbitral award was granted.

The plaintiff moved to set aside the registrar's dismissal of his claim, which had been ongoing for 23 years.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for the inordinate delay in prosecuting the action.

The court also determined that the plaintiff could not rebut the presumption of non-compensable prejudice suffered by the defendants due to the passage of time, including unavailable witnesses and documents.

The court noted the action had been previously dismissed and reinstated, and the plaintiff still could not satisfy the requirements to set the matter down for trial.

Following a successful appeal, the Court of Appeal determined the appellant's costs for the underlying action.

The court awarded the appellant costs of the underlying action, including summary judgment motions but excluding costs associated with a cross-claim, on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $65,231.79.

The court declined to make an order regarding additional costs sought by the appellant's shareholders' counsel.

Les demandeurs ont poursuivi l’exploitant et le propriétaire d’un parc aquatique après une chute ayant causé une fracture du coude.

Le procès portait uniquement sur la responsabilité des occupantes au regard de la Loi sur la responsabilité des occupants.

Le tribunal a conclu que la preuve n’établissait pas, selon la prépondérance des probabilités, l’existence d’une condition dangereuse ayant causé la chute, notamment en raison d’incohérences importantes entre les témoignages au procès et les interrogatoires préalables.

La preuve des défenderesses sur l’entretien continu et l’état impeccable des lieux a été retenue.

L’action a donc été rejetée sur la question de la responsabilité.

In a bifurcated slip-and-fall trial arising from an incident at a recreational waterpark, the plaintiffs sought to call a mechanical engineer to opine on whether the water filtration system was designed to operate underwater and on contaminants allegedly affecting the surface condition.

After a voir dire, the court applied the Mohan criteria for admissibility of expert evidence and held that the proposed witness lacked specific expertise in commercial pool filtration systems, waterpark operations, and water contamination analysis.

The court further found the opinion evidence did not satisfy the necessity requirement because it was not shown how it would materially assist in proving the alleged hazard at the location of the fall.

The plaintiffs' expert was therefore disqualified.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike multiple paragraphs of the plaintiff’s statement of claim in an oppression action involving a minority shareholder.

The defendants argued the impugned paragraphs lacked full particulars, improperly pleaded evidence or opinion, and constituted an abuse of process by referencing allegedly frivolous legal proceedings.

The court held that most of the allegations sufficiently pleaded material facts and provided necessary narrative context.

However, several paragraphs were struck where they improperly pleaded evidence or opinion.

The court granted partial relief by striking limited portions of the pleading with leave to amend and dismissed the remainder of the motion.

Following the dismissal of summary judgment motions brought by the defendants, the plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis for successfully defending the motions.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including success, complexity, proportionality, and the conduct of the parties.

While the defendants’ motions were brought reasonably and with the objective of shortening the proceedings, the plaintiff was substantially successful in resisting them, though some issues remained for trial.

The court concluded that costs should be fixed immediately rather than deferred to the trial judge.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.

GSI Environnement Inc. sued the City of Ottawa for unpaid invoices related to a biosolids disposal contract.

The City counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging GSI wrongfully repudiated the agreement.

GSI argued the City breached the contract first by supplying non-conforming biosolids due to Quebec regulatory changes.

The court found that a 2007 amendment to the contract addressed the non-conforming biosolids issue by adjusting the pricing structure, and alternatively, any breach by the City was not fundamental.

Although the City's counterclaim was statute-barred, the court allowed an equitable set-off, effectively denying GSI's claim.

The City was awarded judgment against EnGlobe Corp. for unpaid disposal costs.

GSI Environnement Inc. sued the City of Ottawa for unpaid invoices related to a biosolids disposal contract.

The City counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging GSI wrongfully repudiated the agreement.

GSI argued the City breached the contract first by supplying non-conforming biosolids due to Quebec regulatory changes.

The court found that a 2007 amendment to the contract addressed the non-conforming biosolids issue by adjusting the pricing structure, and alternatively, any breach by the City was not fundamental.

Although the City's counterclaim was statute-barred, the court allowed an equitable set-off, effectively denying GSI's claim.

The City was awarded judgment against EnGlobe Corp. for unpaid disposal costs.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding a right of first refusal on a quarry property.

The plaintiff had operated the quarry under a 1991 agreement that expired in 2006, but continued to pay rent.

The court found the agreement was a lease that renewed on a year-to-year basis.

However, the court held that whether the right of first refusal also renewed, and whether a binding agreement of purchase and sale was formed, were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The defendants' motions for summary judgment were dismissed and an expedited trial was ordered.