Joy Alison Gordon Casey

Following dismissal of stay and forum non conveniens motions in an application to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful applicant sought $65,000 in partial indemnity costs apportioned between the responding corporation and a non‑party that had actively participated in the motion.

The court applied Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles of proportionality and fairness articulated by the Court of Appeal, finding the requested amount reasonable given the complexity of the issues and extensive materials filed.

It held that a non‑party that voluntarily participates in litigation to protect its own interests may be liable for costs under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Costs were fixed at $65,000 and apportioned 75% to the corporate respondent and 25% to the participating non‑party.

The Trustee in bankruptcy moved to strike portions of the respondent's affidavit filed in opposition to an application for partition and sale of a property.

The impugned portions contained allegations of misconduct and fraud by the Trustee in the administration of the estate.

The court held that while issues of admissibility are generally left to the judge hearing the main application, allegations that are clearly irrelevant, scandalous, and vexatious personal attacks on the Trustee must be struck in advance.

The motion was granted and the offending paragraphs were struck.

A state-owned corporation moved to set aside an Ontario order recognizing and enforcing an international arbitral award against a foreign state and alternatively sought a stay of related execution proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds.

The moving party argued it was a person affected by the judgment because enforcement steps sought to seize shares it claimed to own.

The court held that a non-party claiming a proprietary interest in assets subject to execution does not have standing under Rule 38.11 to attack the underlying judgment against the debtor state.

The court further held that the moving party failed to establish that a foreign jurisdiction was clearly a more appropriate forum to determine ownership of shares issued by an Ontario-headquartered corporation for purposes of enforcing the judgment.

Both motions were dismissed.

The appellant, a probationary managerial employee, brought an action against her employer involving whistle-blowing allegations.

The employer brought a motion challenging the Superior Court's jurisdiction, arguing the appellant should have used the grievance procedure under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

The motion judge dismissed the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the employer failed to advise the appellant of the grievance procedure, and by the time jurisdiction was raised, the grievance period had expired.

The Court held that the Superior Court retains residual jurisdiction and that denying the appellant access to the court would leave her without a remedy.

The appeal was allowed and the employer's motion was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent did not provide assurance that the appellant would not pay more for hotel rooms than if booked directly.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to deleting one paragraph of the judgment to allow the appellant to be paid its commission, with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order determining that his wrongful dismissal claim was statute-barred.

He received notice of termination on December 12, 1994, with a termination date of January 31, 1995, and commenced his action on January 30, 2001.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the breach of the employment contract occurred on December 12, 1994, when the appellant was dismissed without reasonable notice, as alleged in his statement of claim.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding it liable for rent arrears and property damage under a commercial lease.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's decision to discount damages by 50%.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in interpreting the lease acknowledgment or assessing the evidence of damage to the premises.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to allow their pleadings to be amended to include a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, expressing serious reservations that the conduct constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, and agreeing with the motions judge's alternative finding of laches.