Julien A. Frigon

This is a costs decision following a motion by the self-represented plaintiff, Troy Warren, to amend his Statement of Claim.

While the plaintiff succeeded in adding Canada Post Corporation as a defendant, his request to add several individual defendants was denied.

The defendant, Telus Health (Canada) Ltd., sought costs of $21,476.79 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the motion was straightforward and that the hourly rates of Toronto-based counsel were excessive for an Ottawa-based matter, ultimately awarding Telus Health $15,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The appellant purchased a wood chipper from the respondent vendor to use with his tractor.

Three years later, the tractor sustained damage while operating the wood chipper.

The appellant sued the vendor and manufacturer for breach of contract, breach of the implied condition of fitness for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act, and negligent misrepresentation, alleging the wood chipper was incompatible with his tractor.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the action, finding the appellant failed to prove the wood chipper caused the damage.

On appeal, the Divisional Court affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in her reliance on lay opinion evidence or her factual findings.

The plaintiff, a self-represented postal worker, brought a motion to amend his Statement of Claim to increase his claim for lost wages, add several proposed defendants, and compel mediation.

The court allowed the plaintiff to add Canada Post Corporation as a defendant, finding that the defamation claim against the corporation was legally tenable and raised genuine issues of discoverability regarding the limitation period.

However, the court denied leave to add individual employees of Canada Post and Telus Health, concluding that the claims against them lacked a reasonable cause of action.

Ultimately, the court ordered the correction of one defendant's corporate name, the removal of another defendant by concession, and directed the parties to attend mandatory mediation.

This is an appeal from a Divisional Court decision that granted judicial review, quashing an administrative decision and a request for bids related to the procurement of identification cards.

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) required card stock to be produced in Canada, which Thales DIS Canada Inc. (Thales) challenged as discriminatory under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).

The Divisional Court found the MTO's decision and request for bids unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the reasonableness standard of review by conducting a de novo assessment instead of focusing on the administrative decision-maker's reasons.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Director's decision was reasonable and that the request for bids was not separately subject to judicial review given the existence of an adequate internal dispute resolution process.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of an urgent injunction application.

The court considered three hearings: the initial injunction application, a hearing regarding the respondent's breach of undertaking, and a hearing requested by the respondent to vary an interim order.

The injunction was dismissed due to the applicant's failure to provide an undertaking as to damages.

The court awarded costs to the respondent for the initial injunction hearing and for responding to the applicant's post-decision attempt to provide the undertaking, but denied costs for the hearings related to the undertaking breach and the failed attempt to vary the interim order, finding them unnecessary.

The court also assessed the reasonableness of the respondent's claimed legal hours and hourly rates.

The applicant, Cash Cloud Inc., sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent, BitAccess Inc., from terminating a Master Purchase Agreement, deactivating cloud-based software used for cryptocurrency kiosks, and deleting customer data.

The court found it had jurisdiction to grant interim relief despite a mandatory arbitration clause.

The court granted a 60-day order preserving the customer data to allow the applicant to download it.

However, the court dismissed the injunction to restrain the software deactivation because the applicant failed to provide the mandatory undertaking as to damages required by Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.