Joel Rockwood Levine

This appeal arose from a tragic boat accident involving multiple fatalities and injuries.

The Court of Appeal addressed three consolidated appeals: liability of government respondents, interpretation of the Marine Liability Act's monetary cap, and costs.

The court upheld the motion judge's finding that the boat operators were solely liable for the accident, dismissing the appeal against the government respondents.

It also affirmed that the Marine Liability Act's monetary cap for maritime claims for loss of life or personal injury does not include costs and interest.

While leave to appeal the quantum of costs and the Sanderson Order was denied, leave was granted on one specific costs issue, resulting in both estates being held jointly and severally liable for one plaintiff's costs.

This decision addresses costs following summary judgment motions in two consolidated actions stemming from a fatal boating accident.

The court had previously found the individual defendants (Comrie and Monteiro Estates) liable for the accident, while dismissing claims against the government defendants (Canada, Ontario, and Leamington).

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful plaintiffs (Algra and Feltham) against the individual defendants.

Crucially, the court also granted a Sanderson order, directing the individual defendants (Comrie and Monteiro Estates) to jointly and severally pay the costs of the successful government defendants.

The court found it reasonable for the plaintiffs to have sued multiple defendants given the complex facts, lack of eyewitnesses, and the individual defendants' attempts to shift blame to the government entities.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a summary judgment decision that found it liable for negligence in failing to keep an inmate reasonably safe while housed at Millhaven Institution, a maximum security penitentiary.

The inmate was assaulted by three other inmates in his cell during a prison strike.

The motion judge granted summary judgment on liability, finding the Crown negligent in its placement of the inmate, failure to maintain surveillance, failure to respond to cell alarms, and failure to prevent cell access.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge exceeded his authority by making unjustified findings of fact on an inadequate evidentiary record and applying an incorrect legal standard for causation.

Following a successful motion dismissing the action for failure to deposit security for costs and pay outstanding costs orders, the defendant sought costs of the action.

The court found that the self‑represented plaintiff repeatedly abused and maligned defence counsel and ignored prior court warnings regarding unfounded allegations.

The misconduct was characterized as wilful and harmful to the integrity of the court and its officers.

The court held that punitive costs on a substantial indemnity basis were necessary.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 and the action was dismissed with costs payable forthwith.

Following a status hearing under Rule 48.14(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure concerning potential dismissal for delay, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The defendant had sought dismissal of the action due to delay, while the court instead facilitated an agreement on a timetable for further steps to move the matter toward trial.

The plaintiff, who had previously been self‑represented and had made allegations against opposing counsel, later sought costs.

The court concluded that awarding costs to the plaintiff would reward inappropriate conduct and noted that dismissal was a legitimate request under the rule.

No costs were awarded.