J.F. Lalonde

Decision on costs following a municipal dispute in which the respondent municipality had largely succeeded but the applicants achieved limited success on one billing issue.

The court held the success was shared and accepted that ambiguity in the municipal by-law, including the undefined term for a dwelling unit and an erroneous French equivalent, contributed to the need for judicial interpretation.

Applying the relevant costs factors, the court declined to award the full amount claimed and instead fixed costs at 2,000 $ plus HST on a partial indemnity basis.

A municipality brought an application seeking a finding of contempt against a property owner for failing to comply with court orders requiring compliance with building permit requirements and cessation of construction.

The court held that two earlier orders could not ground a contempt finding, including a prior contempt order imposing a fine.

However, the respondent was found to have willfully breached a subsequent order requiring him to obtain building permits, cease construction, and demolish unlawfully erected structures.

The court rejected the respondent’s argument that the municipality acted unreasonably in refusing permits and concluded that the respondent deliberately disregarded municipal building code requirements and court orders.

A finding of contempt was entered beyond a reasonable doubt, a committal warrant for 30 days’ imprisonment was issued, the municipality was authorized to demolish the structures, and costs were awarded.

The appellant sought to set aside an arbitral award regarding a commercial dispute over the sale of carrots.

The application judge dismissed the application because it was brought outside the 30-day time limit under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the International Commercial Arbitration Act (ICAA), which has a three-month time limit, should apply, or alternatively, that the court should extend the 30-day limit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the Arbitration Act applied because both parties were Ontario businesses and the dispute was domestic.

The Court also held there is no judicial discretion to extend the 30-day time limit under section 47 of the Arbitration Act.

Following a decision that granted a motion to strike certain affidavit evidence but dismissed an application challenging an arbitral award, both parties sought costs.

The respondent, successful on the application, sought substantial indemnity costs, while the applicant sought costs for its successful motion to strike.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs to either party, finding the conduct did not reach the threshold of reprehensible behaviour and there were no settlement offers.

The court held that each side had partial success and that reasonable partial indemnity costs would be similar for both.

As a result, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitral award arising from a dispute between two agricultural businesses over the purchase and sale of carrot products conducted under the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation arbitration process.

The applicant argued jurisdictional errors, procedural unfairness, improper reliance on mediation materials, lack of arbitrator expertise, and the applicability of the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

The court held that the Arbitration Act, 1991 applied because the dispute involved two Ontario businesses and the arbitration was not international.

The application to set aside the award was statute‑barred because it was brought outside the 30‑day limit under the Arbitration Act and the court had no jurisdiction to extend the time.

In any event, the court found no jurisdictional error or procedural unfairness warranting intervention.

The moving parties sought an order under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to stay or dismiss an Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction or on the basis that Italy was the proper forum.

The action alleged breach of contract and inducement of breach relating to an agreement dividing inherited Italian real property among family members following the completion of succession proceedings in Italy.

Applying the jurisdictional framework in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that Ontario had a real and substantial connection to the dispute because the parties resided in Ottawa, the agreement was signed there, and the alleged breach occurred there.

The court rejected arguments that Italian succession law governed the dispute or that Italy was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The motion to dismiss or stay the action was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiff alleged misuse of a joint bank account by his spouse and conversion of a workplace insurance care payment issued in his name.

The court rejected the claim relating to the spouses’ joint bank account, finding the account was managed consistently with the parties’ longstanding intention that the spouse handle household finances.

However, the court found that the spouse and her parents wrongfully converted a WSIB cheque issued to the plaintiff by concealing the payment and depositing it into an account in the mother’s name.

The defendants’ claim that the funds represented compensation for caregiving services failed due to lack of contractual consideration and the equitable doctrine of clean hands.

Judgment was granted for the amount of the cheque plus modest punitive damages.