Derek Collins

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it breached an oral contract to pay a 5% commission on balloon sales to a retail chain.

The appellant argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact-finding and improperly relied on discovery evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were amply supported by the record and the improper admission of discovery evidence caused no substantial wrong.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding a pre-trial costs order was allowed, as the trial judge lacked authority to alter the motion judge's order.

The applicants sought substantial indemnity costs or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs after successfully obtaining an injunction to shut down a police firing range.

The respondent had offered to cease activity without costs, which the applicants rejected due to wanting costs and environmental clean-up.

The court dismissed the claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the respondent.

However, the court found the applicants' partial indemnity claim of $60,237.93 to be reasonable given the complexity and importance of the case, and ordered the respondent to pay this amount.

Following previously released reasons for judgment, the court considered written submissions from counsel regarding damages, pre-judgment interest, and costs.

The court determined that the parties had not been ad idem regarding the originally referenced damage amount and corrected the damages to a lower amount consistent with the evidence and an exhibit accepted as accurate.

The court also fixed pre-judgment interest from the fall of 2006 and reassessed the plaintiff’s costs in light of a prior offer to settle and the factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The earlier judgment was amended to reflect the corrected damages, interest, and a consolidated costs award.

The plaintiff corporation claimed a 5% commission on sales made by the defendant balloon wholesaler to a major retail chain, alleging an oral agreement was reached after the plaintiff introduced the parties and helped strategize the sales program.

The defendant denied the agreement, arguing the plaintiff had minimal involvement and offering a nominal fee.

The court found that an oral agreement for a 5% commission on gross sales did exist, based on the parties' correspondence, past relationship, and the plaintiff's significant role in securing the account.

The court awarded the plaintiff $350,000 in damages, representing commissions for a reasonable five-year period.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking extensive discovery relief in a contractual dispute, including permission to create a mirror copy of the defendant’s computer hard drive, disclosure of detailed information regarding the defendant’s electronic document searches, enforcement of alleged undertakings, and permission to contact the defendant’s IT manager.

The court held that the Rules of Civil Procedure require production of relevant documents but do not require a party to disclose the methodology used to search for those documents.

The plaintiff’s request for a mirror copy of the defendant’s hard drive was rejected as speculative and invasive, absent evidence that relevant undisclosed documents existed.

The court also found that the undertakings relied upon by the plaintiff had either been fulfilled or had not been given as alleged, and that contacting the defendant’s IT manager directly would breach the Rules of Professional Conduct because he was involved in the conduct of the litigation.

A mortgagee sought costs following motions in a mortgage enforcement action where it obtained summary judgment against the mortgagors.

The mortgagors had unsuccessfully alleged that the property was sold for less than fair market value and were only notionally successful on a venue motion with no practical effect after summary judgment was granted.

The mortgage required the mortgagors to indemnify the mortgagee for enforcement costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found the mortgagee’s costs outline reasonable and awarded fees and disbursements on a full indemnity scale.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Hamilton's decision not to process an application for the renewal of a body rub parlour licence.

The licence had automatically terminated under the municipal by-law when the controlling interest in the applicant corporation was transferred following the death of its principal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the automatic termination constituted a lawful revocation under the by-law, which permanently reduced the number of available licences and left the City with no authority to issue a new one.

The defendants, who were successful at trial, brought a motion for security for costs of the plaintiff's appeal under Rule 61.06(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario and that there was good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, as the trial judge had made strong adverse credibility findings against the plaintiff and rejected his expert evidence.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $10,000 into court as security for the defendants' costs of the appeal.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's decision, which was based on the credibility of witnesses, surveillance video, and the appellant's failure to disclose relevant information to his doctors and on his CPP application.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's decision and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $4,500.

The respondent applied for an official plan amendment, zoning change, and subdivision approval, providing the prescribed information but refusing to provide additional information requested by the appellant municipality.

The municipality refused to forward the appeal record to the Ontario Municipal Board, arguing the 90-day period for a decision had not commenced.

The Court of Appeal held that under the Planning Act, the 90-day period begins once the prescribed information and fees are provided, regardless of whether additional requested information is supplied.

The appeal was dismissed, allowing the respondent to proceed directly to the OMB.