Kate Findlay

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a stay of proceedings due to the plaintiff’s failure to promptly disclose a settlement with certain defendants.

The court reviews the history of the Anton Piller Order, the Comeback Order, and the subsequent motions, ultimately awarding partial indemnity costs to the successful defendants, Marc Castillo and Castillo HR Consulting Inc., in the amount of $45,000.

The court declines to revisit costs already determined by a previous order and limits recovery to the portion of the motion related to the stay, excluding costs for the Anton Piller Order and preparation of a discovery plan.

The court considered a motion by Marc Castillo and Castillo HR Consulting Inc. to stay the action for abuse of process due to Peninsula Employment Services Ltd.'s failure to immediately disclose settlement agreements with three former co-defendants.

The court found that the delayed disclosure of these agreements, which required the settling defendants to cooperate with the plaintiff, fundamentally altered the adversarial landscape and violated the strict requirement for immediate disclosure.

As a result, the action was permanently stayed.

The court also addressed, in obiter, the obligations of the Independent Supervising Solicitor regarding the production and accessibility of electronic documents seized under an Anton Piller Order.

The plaintiff, Peninsula Employment Services Ltd., brought an ex parte motion for an Anton Piller order, an interim injunction to prevent copyright infringement, and a sealing order against former employees and their new company, Castillo HR Consulting Inc., and three corporate clients.

The plaintiff alleged unlawful access and removal of proprietary information, copyright infringement, and exploitation of trade secrets.

The court found a strong prima facie case, serious damage to the plaintiff, convincing evidence of incriminating documents in the defendants' possession, and a real possibility of destruction of evidence.

The court also found that the test for an interim injunction was met, including serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff.

The motion for the Anton Piller order, interim injunction, and a limited sealing order was granted.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded agreed costs of $15,000 to the responding plaintiff.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellants argued that their appeal raised novel issues in the public interest, warranting no costs award.

The court rejected this, finding the appeal involved the application of well-established legal principles.

The respondent, GlaxoSmithKline Inc., successfully resisted the appeal and was awarded partial indemnity costs, fixed at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, limiting the award to costs associated with time spent by two senior lawyers.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that dismissed their action against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), alleging that an H1N1 vaccine manufactured by GSK caused their five-year-old daughter's death.

The appeal raised issues concerning GSK's duty to warn (including the learned intermediary rule), its post-marketing commitments, the inference of negligence from circumstantial evidence, and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that GSK adequately warned the learned intermediary (the physician), met its post-marketing obligations, and that the appellants failed to prove negligence or causation on a balance of probabilities.

The court also upheld the trial judge's discretionary costs award.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers of COLD-FX products, alleging that representations that the products were 'proven by science' or 'clinically proven' to reduce cold and flu symptoms were false and misleading.

The court found that the plaintiff met all the requirements for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court held that the claims under the Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, and for unjust enrichment disclosed valid causes of action, as reliance is not required for these claims.

The court certified the class and the proposed common issues against Bausch Health Canada Inc. and Valeant Canada LP, finding that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $116,706.47 following a successful motion and the dismissal of the defendant's cross-motion.

The plaintiff argued the defendant engaged in suspicious and abusive conduct, including commencing a separate action in Korea and insisting on unnecessary foreign law experts.

The court agreed that the defendant's aggressive and strategic conduct unnecessarily complicated the dispute.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff in the amount of $80,000 against the primary defendant and $3,000 against the secondary defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion to consolidate two actions or amend its statement of claim.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to stay the second action based on an arbitration clause in their sales agreement.

The court found that the defendant was estopped from relying on the arbitration clause because it had previously commenced a court action in Korea alleging breach of contract, rendering the arbitration clause inoperative.

The cross-motion to stay was dismissed, and the plaintiff's motion to amend and consolidate the actions was granted to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a national class action against a telecommunications provider for failing to provide pro-rated refunds to customers who cancelled their wireless service agreements.

The court denied certification for the national class claim under the Telecommunications Act, finding no viable cause of action.

However, the court granted certification for an Ontario subclass advancing claims under the Wireless Services Agreement Act, 2013, finding that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action, there was an identifiable class, and the common issues, including aggregate and punitive damages, were suitable for a class proceeding.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against a telecommunications provider seeking pro-rated refunds for prepaid wireless services after cancelling her contract.

The plaintiff relied on a statutory cause of action under the Telecommunications Act, alleging the provider breached the CRTC's Wireless Code.

The provider brought a cross-motion to strike the claim.

The Superior Court granted the cross-motion, finding that the plaintiff's claim was essentially for breach of contract, which is expressly excluded from the statutory cause of action by s. 72(3) of the Act.

Alternatively, the court held it would decline to exercise jurisdiction and defer to the CRTC, which has exclusive regulatory authority over the Wireless Code.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against a wireless service provider for failing to provide pro-rated refunds upon cancellation of services, relying on the provincial Wireless Services Agreement Act, 2013.

The defendant brought a cross-motion arguing the provincial Act was ultra vires or inoperative due to federal jurisdiction over telecommunications.

The court held that the provincial Act was valid consumer protection legislation, and was not rendered inoperative by the doctrines of federal paramountcy or interjurisdictional immunity.

The plaintiff, Robert Drynan, brought a motion to approve a third-party litigation funding agreement in a class action against Bausch Health Companies Inc. and related entities, alleging misleading marketing of COLD-FX® products.

The court addressed the defendants' objections concerning security for costs, litigation autonomy, overcompensation, and access to justice.

After amendments to the funding agreement to cap recovery for the funder and class counsel at 33.3% of proceeds and defer court approval for certain expenses, the court approved the agreement, finding it fair, reasonable, and conducive to access to justice, while protecting the defendants' interests.

The plaintiff killed his son while experiencing a psychotic episode allegedly caused by the antidepressant Paxil, manufactured by the defendant.

He was found not criminally responsible and was under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board until receiving an absolute discharge in December 2009.

He commenced an action against the defendant in October 2011.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff lacked the psychological capacity to sue until his absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge materially misapprehended the evidence.

Exercising its fact-finding powers, the Court concluded the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of capacity under s. 7(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002, as he had demonstrated the ability to instruct counsel, manage affairs, and understand the litigation process well before his discharge.

The action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs brought an action against GlaxoSmithKline following the sudden and unexplained death of their five-year-old daughter, who died five days after receiving the H1N1 vaccine (Arepanrix).

The plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer breached its standard of care by failing to adequately test the vaccine and failing to warn of its risks, and that the vaccine caused the child's death.

The court dismissed the action, finding no expert evidence to establish a breach of the standard of care regarding the vaccine's testing, approval, or disclosure of risks.

Furthermore, the court rejected the plaintiffs' expert evidence on causation, relying instead on the forensic pathologist and epidemiological experts who concluded there was no evidence linking the vaccine to the child's death.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's product liability action as statute-barred.

The plaintiff had killed his son while experiencing a psychotic episode, which he alleged was caused by the defendant's antidepressant medication.

The court found that while the plaintiff had cognitive awareness of his potential claim earlier, he lacked the psychological capacity to commence the action until his absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Following an omnibus motion in a secondary market securities class action, the defendants sought costs payable forthwith.

The plaintiffs and one co-defendant argued for costs in the cause.

The court ordered costs in the cause, noting that the omnibus motion involved novel legal issues and was part of the fabric of the whole litigation, making it fairest that the ultimate victor in the action receive the costs.

This decision addresses eight motions in a billion-dollar secondary market securities class action.

The court granted motions by SNC-Lavalin and its Outside Directors to strike paragraphs from the Plaintiffs' Amended Reply and dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion to deliver a Fresh as Amended Reply, finding that the Plaintiffs were attempting to plead a new, uncapped liability claim without leave and reintroduce previously rejected allegations of bribery in Libya.

The court also granted motions by the Outside Directors and Michael Novak to strike paragraphs from Riadh Ben Aïssa's Statement of Defence, which similarly attempted to introduce allegations of bribery in Libya and knowledge against co-defendants beyond the scope of the granted leave.

Additionally, the court granted protective orders for the examinations for discovery of Messrs.

Ben Aïssa, Duhaime, and Roy, who faced criminal charges, to protect their Charter rights and the integrity of criminal proceedings, but denied requests to stay or postpone discoveries.

The applicant sought to stay a Renewable Energy Approval amendment and an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision regarding a transmission line route modification near her property, pending judicial review and appeal.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness as she was not properly notified of her right to a hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The Divisional Court found that while the denial of procedural fairness raised a serious issue, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm with corroborating medical or environmental evidence.

The court also found the OEB reasonably concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the applicant's health and environmental concerns and that she was not an 'owner of land affected' under the Ontario Energy Board Act.

Both motions for a stay were dismissed without costs.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21 for an order that it was not responsible to pay the plaintiff subcontractor for extra work that was not negotiated or confirmed in writing prior to the work being done, as required by their contract.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion arguing the defendant varied the terms of the contract by its conduct when its site superintendent requested the work and signed purchase orders.

The court found that the defendant's failure to pay for any of the extras distinguished the case from precedents where conduct constituted a waiver.

The court held the defendant was not liable for the extra charges and awarded costs to the defendant.