John A. Terry

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review concerning the duty to consult on a wind farm project, the successful respondents sought costs.

The court noted the complexity of the issue, the significant financial stakes of the $240 million project, and the applicant's 15-month delay in commencing the application.

The court awarded costs of $50,000 plus disbursements and HST to each of the two respondent groups, while the respondent Minister did not seek costs.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of applications by Belokon, Entes, Sistem, and Stans (the "Applicants") to recognize and enforce arbitral awards against the Kyrgyz Republic (the "Republic"), and to declare an exigible ownership interest of the Republic in Centerra Gold Inc. shares held by Kyrgyzaltyn JSC.

The Republic and Kyrgyzaltyn (the "Respondents") sought costs.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting claims for full or substantial indemnity.

It also determined that costs should be payable on a several, not joint and several, basis due to the unrelated nature of the Applicants and the court-directed common issue hearing.

The court limited the costs award to the common issue hearing, excluding prior jurisdiction motions or general recognition application costs, and considered previous compensation for materials.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the successful respondent sought costs of $20,000.

The appellant argued no costs should be awarded as he was a public interest litigant and the appeal raised a novel issue.

The Divisional Court rejected these arguments, noting that private landowners challenging REAs are not public interest litigants and the appeal did not raise a novel issue.

The court fixed costs payable by the appellant to the respondent at $10,000.

The applicants sought a declaration that the Kyrgyz Republic held an exigible ownership interest in shares of Centerra Gold Inc. registered in the name of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kyrgyzaltyn JSC, to enforce arbitral awards.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the Agreement on New Terms (ANT) unambiguously established Kyrgyzaltyn JSC as the beneficial owner of the shares, not the Republic.

The court rejected arguments based on contract interpretation under New York law and trust principles under Canadian law, emphasizing the separate legal personality of the subsidiary and the lack of evidence for an ownership interest or trust.

The moving parties sought costs of $11,097.22 on a partial indemnity basis after successfully obtaining an adjournment.

The respondent opposed the costs, arguing they should be assessed later or denied due to alleged delays.

The court found the motion was entirely avoidable and necessitated by the respondent's unreasonable refusal to consent to the adjournment.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $6,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving parties sought costs of $11,097.22 on a partial indemnity basis after successfully obtaining an adjournment of a judicial review application.

The applicant opposed the costs, arguing they should be assessed later or denied.

The court found the motion was entirely avoidable and necessitated by the applicant's unreasonable refusal to consent to the adjournment.

The court awarded costs to the moving parties but reduced the amount to $6,000, finding the time spent on the motion materials excessive.

The applicant, the Attorney General of Canada, sought to set aside a NAFTA arbitral award that found Canada liable for breaching the prohibition on performance requirements under Article 1106.

Canada argued that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by applying the wrong criteria to determine whether the impugned guidelines fell within Canada's reservation for subordinate measures under Article 1108.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that the tribunal's interpretation of the NAFTA reservation provisions was a question of merits, not a true question of jurisdiction under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Commercial Arbitration Code.

The moving parties brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of a judicial review application scheduled for February 2016.

The moving parties argued that their counsel was unavailable, they were not consulted on the date, and there was insufficient time to prepare a proper response, including conducting cross-examinations.

The court applied the factors for granting an adjournment and found that proceeding in February would deny the moving parties the opportunity to fairly make out their case.

The motion was granted and the hearing was adjourned to October 2016.

Following the settlement and abandonment of an application for judicial review regarding the Crown's duty to consult, the interveners and the respondent Ontario Power Authority sought costs against the applicants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the requests for costs.

The court held that interveners typically do not receive costs and that imposing costs on First Nations in disputes concerning constitutional rights and reconciliation would inappropriately deter such claims.

The court also denied costs to the Ontario Power Authority, noting it played a secondary role and the Crown itself did not seek costs.

The applicant sought to be relieved from paying costs under the public interest principle after its application was dismissed.

The Divisional Court declined to deprive the respondents of costs, noting that while the applicant had no pecuniary interest, the application was without legal basis given clear and recent precedent.

The applicant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to each of the respondents.

East Durham Wind, LP moved to be added as a party or intervener in an application for judicial review concerning a Renewable Energy Approval for its wind project.

The applicant opposed the motion, while the respondent Ministry consented.

The court granted East Durham Wind party intervener status under Rule 13.01, finding it had a direct economic interest and could make a useful contribution.

The court also granted the moving party's request to conditionally transfer the proceeding from Brampton to Toronto to facilitate an expedited hearing before the scheduled start of project construction.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Director of the Ministry of the Environment's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The applicant argued the Director failed to comply with regulatory requirements and denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both personal and public interest standing.

In the alternative, the court held that the Director's decision to dispense with strict compliance with notice requirements was reasonable, and the consultation process met the common law requirements of procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment which found that her long-term disability benefits under an insurance policy were to be reduced by payments she received from CPP and HOOPP disability plans.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the policy language clear.

The respondents' cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed, with net costs of $7,500 awarded to the respondents.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board declining to review its previous decision that allowed a wind energy company to build distribution facilities on municipal road allowances.

The municipality argued the Board erred in interpreting its review power too narrowly and that the presence of an original panel member on the review panel created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's interpretation of its review rules was reasonable and that the participation of an original member in a reconsideration process does not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The United Mexican States appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing its application to set aside a portion of a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration award in favour of Cargill, Incorporated.

The arbitral tribunal had awarded Cargill damages for both its Mexican subsidiary's lost sales and its own lost sales of high fructose corn syrup to the subsidiary ('up-stream losses') resulting from Mexico's trade barriers.

Mexico argued the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award up-stream losses.

The Court of Appeal held that the standard of review for true questions of jurisdiction under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law is correctness.

However, the Court found that the tribunal correctly identified its jurisdictional limits and that the determination of whether the up-stream losses arose out of Mexico's breaches was a matter for the tribunal's expertise, not a jurisdictional issue.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the appeal and cross-appeal, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $26,457.59.

The Law Foundation of Ontario, responsible for the appellants' costs, argued for a reduction to $12,000 due to novelty, public interest, and access to justice concerns.

The Court of Appeal fixed the respondent's costs at $18,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST, reflecting the nature of the appeal and the dismissal of the cross-appeal.

The appellants, who received long-term disability benefits, brought a proposed class action challenging the insurer's deduction of CPP Child Benefits from their payments.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the deductions were permitted by the policies and not contrary to the Canada Pension Plan, and awarded the insurer $215,000 in costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal and the costs award, confirming that while the factors in s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act must be given significance, they do not automatically insulate an unsuccessful class plaintiff from an adverse costs award.

Following the release of the main appellate decisions, the successful parties made costs submissions.

Counsel subsequently agreed to the quantum of costs for all four appeals.

The Court of Appeal ordered costs on a partial indemnity scale to TeleZone Inc., G-Civil Inc., Fielding Chemical Technologies Inc., and Michiel McArthur in the agreed-upon amounts.

Four appeals were heard consecutively to determine whether the Ontario Superior Court has jurisdiction over claims for damages against the federal Crown, or whether such claims must be brought in the Federal Court pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Courts Act.

The Crown argued that the claims constituted collateral attacks on federal administrative decisions and required prior judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court retains concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages in contract and tort against the Crown.

Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Court only for prerogative remedies and declaratory relief, not for damages.

The plaintiffs' appeals were allowed and the Crown's appeals were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award on a policy grievance, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by making factual findings related to individual grievances that were not before him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator properly used uncontested background facts to provide context for the broad policy award.

The court held that determining facts relevant to the award was within the arbitrator's jurisdiction, and his findings were not patently unreasonable.