Glenn Hainey

The appellants brought a motion in writing to amend the court's previous judgment to address the issue of costs granted by the motions judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, noting that the appellants had failed to mention the costs award in their notices of appeal, factum, or oral argument.

The court held that it was too late to raise the issue and that allowing the motion would be unfair and prejudicial to the respondents.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the respondents in the amount of $5,000.

The parties made costs submissions following an appeal decision.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario maintained its view that success on the appeal was equally divided.

Consequently, the court ordered that there be no costs of the appeal.

The United States government sought to enforce a $19 million Illinois judgment and permanent injunction against the defendants, who operated a cross-border lottery telemarketing business.

The motion judge refused summary judgment, finding a triable issue on a 'new' defence of denial of a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The motion judge also ordered an immediate damages inquiry regarding undertakings the U.S. gave when it previously obtained Mareva and Anton Piller orders that were later dissolved.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that there is no new defence to foreign judgment enforcement based on a meaningful opportunity to be heard, which is indistinguishable from natural justice.

The Court enforced the U.S. judgment but upheld the order for a damages inquiry, finding no special circumstances to relieve the U.S. of its undertakings despite the alleged illegality of the defendants' business.

The appellant law firm and the respondent client entered into a contingency fee agreement containing an arbitration clause.

A dispute arose over the fee calculation, and the appellant served a notice of arbitration.

The respondent successfully applied to the Superior Court to strike the notice on the basis that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable for public policy reasons under the Solicitors Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the application judge did not err in assuming jurisdiction to decide the threshold issue of enforceability.

However, the Court found that the arbitration clause was enforceable, provided the arbitrator conducts the arbitration in accordance with the substantive statutory protections of the Solicitors Act, including assessing whether the fee is fair and reasonable.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that an exchange of correspondence did not constitute a binding agreement of purchase and sale for the Guelph Storm.

They also appealed the application judge's decision to award substantial indemnity costs to the respondent on a merged contempt and enforcement application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the contract formation analysis, and upholding the costs award due to the appellants' prolonged delay and attempts to avoid their obligations.