D.R. O’Connor

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding a claim to Casino Rama profits, the successful respondents sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity scale, citing the appellant's conduct and shifting theories.

The Court of Appeal declined to award elevated costs, finding the appellant's conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $250,000 for the Chiefs of Ontario and OFNLP, and $75,000 for Ontario.

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking charges, including possession of over one kilogram of cocaine, and was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge failed to apply the gap principle, as his last conviction was 11 years prior.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge placed undue emphasis on the criminal record and failed to weigh rehabilitation prospects.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence reduced to 5.5 years.

The appellants, major creditors of a bankrupt estate, appealed a Superior Court decision that varied a registrar's taxation of the trustee's final Statement of Receipts and Disbursements.

The registrar had drastically reduced the trustee's fees to $1, disallowed significant legal disbursements, and ordered the trustee to personally pay solicitor and client costs due to misconduct.

The Superior Court judge restored many of the fees and disbursements, finding the registrar exceeded his jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the registrar did have jurisdiction under s. 152(6) of the BIA to review previously taxed solicitor accounts.

The Court fixed the trustee's fees at $49,464.44, allowed $100,000 for the estate solicitor's fees, and ordered the trustee to personally pay half of the appellants' costs of the taxation hearing on a solicitor and client scale due to his misconduct.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the hearing of two appeals.

The Van Breda respondents and the Charron respondents were each awarded costs fixed at $45,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondents Hola Sun Holidays Limited and Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. were each awarded costs fixed at $10,000.

No costs were ordered for or against the interveners.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision confirming the validity of a Trust Agreement.

She argued the agreement defeated her interests in the matrimonial home under the Family Law Act, lacked certainty of subject matter, was signed under duress, and that the trial judge was functus officio when issuing supplementary reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the property was not a matrimonial home when the agreement was executed, the trust subject matter was certain, the trial judge was not functus officio as no order had been entered, and there was no basis to interfere with the finding that duress was not established.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for wrongful dismissal and the value of his shares under a shareholders' agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent's shares had not been validly purchased upon his termination and that he was entitled to participate in the proceeds of the company's subsequent sale.

The court also upheld the trial judge's refusal to reduce wrongful dismissal damages for failure to mitigate.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the award for dividends on Class B preferred shares because the respondent's option agreement explicitly precluded dividend rights until the option was exercised.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for breach of a contract to operate an off-track betting facility.

The trial judge had found the agreement was perpetual and awarded damages for an 11-year period without deducting the cost of sales from the loss of profits calculation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in her analysis of whether the contract was perpetual and in her calculation of damages.

A new trial was ordered to determine the appropriate notice period and recalculate damages.

The appellant appealed the decision of a status hearing judge who dismissed her 2004 action for delay under Rule 48.14(13) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The status hearing was held five years after the statement of defence was filed.

The Court of Appeal found that the status hearing judge was entitled to accept the history of the action as described in the defence affidavit and that his order dismissing the action was justified.

The appeal on the merits and leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation (MFN) appealed the dismissal of its action claiming a 35% share of net profits from Casino Rama.

MFN argued that its selection as the host site for the casino created a binding contract with Ontario based on its submitted proposal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the site selection process did not constitute a binding tender or RFP process for revenue sharing, and that revenue sharing was intended to be negotiated separately among all First Nations.

The Court also rejected MFN's arguments regarding breach of fiduciary duty, misapprehension of the Aboriginal context, and reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the trial judge's interventions.

The appellant was rendered a tetraplegic after diving into shallow water at a provincial park and striking his head.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the appellant was contributorily negligent, failed to prove he hit a sandbar rather than the lake bottom, and that the sandbars were not a hazard under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge made fundamentally inconsistent findings on factual causation, disregarded relevant expert and eyewitness evidence, and misapprehended the evidence regarding the absence of previous injuries at the park.

The appellant was convicted of robbery, unlawful confinement, and other offences arising from a home invasion.

The Crown alleged she acted as an aider or formed a common intention with the principals under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge's jury instructions were confusing and failed to explain the essential elements of the offences.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the instructions failed to link the general principles of party liability to the specific offences charged and improperly commingled the alternative grounds of liability.

The appeal was allowed, convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed an order regarding the compellability of two witnesses and the disclosure of certain memoranda, asserting public interest immunity and deliberative secrecy under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that while certain paragraphs of one memorandum contained statements of fact not covered by deliberative secrecy, the trial judge erred in finding the public interest in disclosure outweighed deliberative secrecy for the remaining information.

The court restricted the scope of questioning and excluded another memorandum from evidence entirely.

The appellant, a judgment creditor of the respondent husband, appealed an order dismissing her motion to enforce her judgment against the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The appellant had loaned money to the husband, part of which was used to pay down the mortgage.

The motion judge held that under s. 4 of the Creditors' Relief Act, outstanding child support arrears took priority over the appellant's claim against the husband's share of the proceeds.

The motion judge also dismissed the appellant's unjust enrichment claim against the respondent wife's share, finding a juridical reason for the enrichment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision and dismissed the appeal, declining to consider a new argument for an equitable lien.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that a conditional sentence should have been granted and that the trial judge overemphasized deterrence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant posed a danger to the community was supported by the evidence.

The court held that the trial judge did not overemphasize specific and general deterrence given the serious and frightening nature of the offences.

The appellants appealed the motion judge's refusal to set aside an earlier order, the ruling that rule 11.02 did not apply, and the decision to strike their pleadings for non-compliance with a previous order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decisions given the unexplained three-month delay in bringing the motion and the appellants' extensive delays in the action.

The appellant seized collateral from a third party who had purchased it from the debtor, arguing its security interest attached upon possession under s. 11(2)(b) of the Personal Property Security Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the seizure did not constitute possession sufficient for attachment under s. 11(1) to defeat the third party's interests, as the appellant did not have a signed security agreement prior to the seizure.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding an easement claim based on the doctrine of Lost Modern Grant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in limiting the relevant 20-year period to the time before the property's conversion to the Land Titles system in 2001.

The Court of Appeal agreed the trial judge erred in law but found the error did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The sole witness relied upon by the appellant was deemed unreliable, and the evidence was insufficient to establish the required 20 years of open and continuous use.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing a claim of civil conspiracy against a respondent solicitor.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the pleaded facts provided no foundation for the claim.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellant, an unsuccessful prospective purchaser of the debtor's assets, sought to appeal an order appointing an interim receiver and approving the sale of the debtor's assets to another party.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the appellant lacked standing.

The court reaffirmed that an unsuccessful bidder does not have a legal or proprietary right in the property being sold and therefore does not have a direct interest sufficient to challenge a sale approval order.

The appellants appealed a contempt order and the penalty imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even excluding the alleged hearsay evidence, there was ample evidence to support the findings of contempt.

The court also upheld the penalty, characterizing it as moderate in the circumstances, and awarded costs to the respondent.