Khalid Parvaiz

Following a motion to vary dismissed in a prior decision, the applicants sought enhanced costs based on the respondents' alleged misconduct, including apparent AI hallucinations in counsel's reply factum.

The court identified seven paragraphs containing fabricated quotations attributed to real cases with correct neutral citations.

Counsel denied using AI and attributed the errors to carelessness and misreading.

The court expressed inability to reconcile the explanation with the nature of the errors and referred the matter to the Law Society of Ontario for investigation.

The costs of the motion to vary were resolved by consent on a substantial indemnity basis.

The individual respondents moved under Rule 59.06 to vary a previous order that enforced arbitral awards and held them jointly and severally liable for costs.

They argued the judge made a slip by holding them personally liable without piercing the corporate veil, and alternatively relied on newly discovered facts regarding an alleged promise not to enforce costs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the previous order accurately reflected the arbitral tribunal's costs award against all respondents.

The court held that costs liability as an unsuccessful party does not depend on piercing the corporate veil, and found no evidence of the alleged promise.

The appellant appealed an order from Henderson J. dismissing a motion to set aside a summary judgment order granted by Donohue J. The Court of Appeal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order of Henderson J. was interlocutory rather than final, and any appeal from that order lies to the Divisional Court with leave.

The appellant was also out of time to appeal the original summary judgment order and had not sought an extension of time.

The appeal was quashed and costs were awarded to the respondents.