Lawrence Andrew Elliot

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion regarding a commercial lease and parking dispute, the successful defendant sought costs of $586,141.79 on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible and noting that Rule 49.10 limits a defendant to partial indemnity costs even when the plaintiff's claim is completely dismissed.

The court awarded the defendant costs of $398,000 on a partial indemnity basis, finding the time spent and hourly rates reasonable given the complexity and the $4.6 million claim.

The Professional Centre brought a motion for summary judgment against The Ottawa Hospital concerning the interpretation of parking provisions in a 49-year lease and related Memorandum of Agreement.

The Professional Centre alleged breaches regarding the availability of 250 parking spaces, remittance of revenue from 40 parking spaces, and unauthorized use of encroaching parking spaces and an access road.

The Hospital denied any breach, asserting it exercised contractual discretion in good faith.

The court dismissed all of the Professional Centre's claims, finding no breach of the lease, that the Hospital had an implied easement over the access road, and that the Professional Centre failed to prove damages, including a high vacancy rate, were caused by the alleged parking issues.

The plaintiffs sought court approval for a settlement reached on behalf of minor plaintiffs and for a contingency fee retainer agreement.

The court denied approval of the retainer agreement due to non-compliance with the Solicitors Act and the Contingency Fee Agreements Regulation, citing issues with alternative fee calculation methods and formal deficiencies.

While the gross settlement for minors was deemed reasonable, final approval was withheld pending a compliant retainer agreement or fee-for-service proposal, and evidence regarding the management of minor plaintiffs' settlement funds.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a settlement under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, involving minor plaintiffs.

The proposed settlement of $250,000.00 included an allocation of $1,000.00 for each minor.

The court declined to approve the settlement due to concerns about a potential conflict of interest between the litigation guardian and the minor plaintiffs, the absence of proposed minutes of settlement, and the proposal to pay funds into RESPs instead of into court as required by Rule 7.09(1).

The court requested additional evidence to assess whether the settlement was in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs.

Following a trial on liability for a motor vehicle accident where the deceased driver was found 80% responsible and the City of Ottawa and its bus driver 20% responsible, the court determined the costs payable to the successful plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought over $811,000 in costs and disbursements.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01, including proportionality, the complexity of the case, and the results achieved.

The court reduced the plaintiffs' claimed costs due to excessive hourly rates for students/paralegals, duplication of effort, and excessive time spent on certain stages.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $527,065.25 in fees and $143,531.25 in disbursements.

Additionally, the court granted a Sanderson Order requiring the unsuccessful defendants to pay the costs of the successful defendant insurer directly.

The appellant sued for wrongful dismissal and payment of a bonus after being terminated for significantly misrepresenting his credentials to obtain his consulting position.

The trial judge dismissed the action and allowed the respondent's counterclaim for damages.

The appellant appealed only with respect to his bonus, arguing he had earned it through successful performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an employee dismissed for cause due to fraudulent misrepresentation of qualifications is not entitled to bonus remuneration, as the court will not assist a party to benefit from their own wrongdoing.

The plaintiffs, four Ford dealerships, appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding against Ford Motor Company of Canada.

The motions judge had found that all certification criteria were met except the preferable procedure requirement, concluding that an application under Rule 14.05(3)(d) would be more efficient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that a Rule 14.05(3)(d) application would not resolve the common issues for the entire class, as Ford refused to be bound by the result for non-parties.

The Court concluded that only a class proceeding would bind the class and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.