John Paul Robert Cassan

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision striking a one-day suspension given to a union representative for unprofessional conduct during and after a termination meeting.

The employer argued the arbitration was procedurally unfair and the arbitrator applied the wrong legal test.

The Divisional Court found that while the arbitrator's refusal to hear a preliminary objection regarding evidence admissibility breached procedural fairness, the outcome of a new hearing would inevitably be the same.

The arbitrator had accepted the employer's evidence regarding the conduct but correctly applied the legal test protecting union representatives from discipline unless their conduct is malicious, knowingly false, or intimidating.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of an application alleging a contravention of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The respondent, who successfully defended the application, sought costs on an actual or substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for a significantly lower amount.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, applied the principle of reasonableness.

Despite the respondent's offer to settle for dismissal without costs, the court found the quantum sought by the respondent excessive given the limited complexity and duration of the proceeding.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, increased due to the respondent's offer to settle, for a total of $15,000.00 to be paid by the applicant.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent, a municipal councillor, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) by participating in a council vote to indemnify himself and other councillors for legal expenses incurred in responding to a Human Rights Tribunal application.

The applicant argued the respondent had a pecuniary interest and sought to have his seat declared vacant.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent's actions did not contravene the MCIA, particularly under the s. 4(i) exception for benefits related to a member's duties, and that the indemnification by-law was mandatory.

The court also noted that even if there was a contravention, the severity claimed was not warranted, and the respondent acted in good faith.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appellants were ordered to pay the respondents $25,000, all-inclusive, for the costs of the appeal.

The decision follows an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellants, a Township and its officials, appealed the dismissal of their anti-SLAPP motion seeking to dismiss a defamation and misfeasance in public office action brought by the respondents, owners of a community newspaper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error in the motion judge's application of the anti-SLAPP test under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, including the weighing of public interest in expression versus harm to reputation, and the assessment of available defences.

The court affirmed that the motion judge correctly applied the legal tests and that anti-SLAPP motions are not the forum for definitive determinations of complex defences.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The applicant, the Integrity Commissioner, was found substantially successful in the underlying application, despite not succeeding on all allegations.

The court considered the applicant's claim for partial or substantial indemnity costs and the respondent's arguments regarding excessive time and junior counsel fees.

The court awarded the applicant $25,000.00 for fees plus $2,125.42 for disbursements, including HST, finding the respondent's conduct intentional and persistent, which warranted more than a nominal costs order.

The Town of Laurentian Hills brought an application without notice under s. 7(2) of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act for an order allowing all members of its municipal council to discuss and vote on matters related to a Near Surface Disposal Facility proposal by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories.

Every member of the council had a conflict of interest as they or a close relative received remuneration from the company, which would prevent a quorum.

The court granted the order, finding that the issue was one of governance and political decision-making rather than personal financial benefit, and did not offend the spirit of the Act.

The Town of Laurentian Hills brought a motion to settle the form of an order previously granted under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which provided exemptions for municipal council members regarding matters involving a major employer.

The Town sought to introduce fresh evidence and a broad schedule of exempted matters.

The court declined to admit the fresh evidence or grant the broad schedule, finding it lacked sufficient particularity.

The court settled the order with a limited and specific list of exemptions based on the evidence from the original hearing.

The appellant, a municipal councillor, appealed a decision declaring her seat vacant for breaching the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The application judge found she intentionally used her position to influence council regarding a fire department service charge levied against her son, and failed to leave a closed meeting where the matter was discussed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact in the application judge's findings on liability or the imposition of the penalty.

The court issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Both parties sought costs.

The defendants claimed over $250,000 for eight different court steps, arguing the self-represented plaintiffs caused unnecessary legal expenses.

The plaintiffs sought $30,000 for successfully defending the motion.

The court awarded the defendants $34,000 for various interlocutory steps, finding the plaintiffs' litigation strategy was disproportionate and caused unnecessary expenses.

The court declined to award costs to the plaintiffs for the s. 137.1 motion, applying the statutory presumption against costs for successful responding parties due to their conduct.

The Integrity Commissioner applied for a determination that a municipal councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The councillor had declared a conflict of interest regarding a fire department service charge levied against her son, but remained in the council meeting and actively questioned the fire department representative about practices and procedures.

The court found the councillor intentionally used her position to attempt to obtain a financial advantage for her son, contravening the Act.

The court declared the councillor's seat vacant but declined to disqualify her from seeking re-election in the future.

The defendants, a municipality and its councillors, brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims of defamation and misfeasance in public office.

The plaintiffs, owners of a local newspaper, alleged the defendants targeted them for their investigative journalism.

The court struck portions of the plaintiffs' affidavits for containing improper argument and opinion.

However, the court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the plaintiffs' claims had substantial merit, the defendants' defences were not guaranteed to succeed, and the public interest in allowing the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions.

The Town of Laurentian Hills applied under s. 7(2) of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act for an order authorizing its council to vote on matters involving Canadian Nuclear Industries (CNL).

Every member of the council had an indirect pecuniary interest in CNL, which would otherwise paralyze decision-making due to a lack of quorum.

A ratepayer objected to a blanket exemption.

The court held that while a blanket exemption for all future CNL matters was not permissible, an exemption could be granted for specifically identified, recurring matters that would inevitably result in a loss of quorum.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court of Justice order.

The appellants appealed a decision and the Court of Appeal addressed the application of cost presumptions under the Court of Justice Act.

The court held that the statutory cost presumptions in s. 137.1(7) and (8) do not apply on appeal, as the statutory language does not expressly refer to costs on appeals.

However, the court exercised its discretion to apply the presumption for the motion costs and awarded the appellants costs on a full indemnity basis for the motion and on a partial indemnity basis for the appeal.

The defendant brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a breach of contract action.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached a settlement agreement by giving testimony before the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the environmental impact of the plaintiff's proposed development.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding that although the testimony constituted expression relating to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff had satisfied the merits and public interest hurdles under section 137.1(4).

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden under section 137.1(4)(a) regarding substantial merit and that the motion judge erred in interpreting "substantial merit" as referring to the seriousness of the subject matter rather than the potential merits of the claim.

The Court also found insufficient evidence of damages to satisfy the public interest balancing under section 137.1(4)(b).

The successful respondent on a motion for leave to appeal an OMB decision sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, or alternatively, partial indemnity costs.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding the appellants' conduct did not warrant an elevated scale.

However, the court rejected the appellants' argument that costs should be limited to a standard $3,500, noting the appellants had raised 34 errors of law.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $20,858.67 to the respondent.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which had dismissed their appeal from a city council decision denying their proposed 91-lot residential development in a coastal wetland area.

The applicants alleged numerous errors of law, including the Board's application of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement instead of the 2005 version, its interpretation of 'negative impacts' and 'limited residential development', and procedural fairness issues regarding the admission of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the 2014 PPS, reasonably interpreted the planning policies, and that any procedural errors regarding expert evidence did not meet the test for granting leave.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for breach of a settlement agreement, invoking Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The court found that the defendants' expression (testimony at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding a land development's environmental impact) related to a matter of public interest, thereby satisfying the first part of the anti-SLAPP test.

However, the plaintiff successfully demonstrated that their action had substantial merit, the defendants had no valid defence, and the public interest in upholding the sanctity and finality of settlement agreements in litigation outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs, given the novelty and merit of the anti-SLAPP motion.

The Thessalon First Nation (TFN) sought an interim injunction to prevent The Municipality of Huron Shores from proceeding with a tax sale of lands TFN claims are part of its reservation.

TFN asserts an historical error in the 1850 Huron Treaty survey.

The Municipality had not collected taxes on the land since 2000, agreeing with TFN's position, but initiated a tax sale due to significant arrears and provincial levies.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious question to be tried regarding Aboriginal land title and the Honour of the Crown, irreparable harm if the land were sold, and that the balance of inconvenience favored TFN, especially considering the potential for the Province to mitigate its costs.

The interim injunction was granted, halting the tax sale, with a further hearing scheduled to allow provincial and federal governments to make submissions.

In an application concerning hydro-electric property tax exemptions under section 3(1), paragraph 18 of the Assessment Act, the court determined that most disputed station components qualified as machinery and equipment used for producing electricity for sale to the general public.

The court rejected a narrow interpretation requiring direct transformation use and held all power produced at the stations met the sale-to-general-public requirement.

The court also held the applicant could not rely on paragraph 17 as an alternative exemption route.

Due conflicting expert evidence, the scope of exempt foundations required further expert process and a trial on that issue.