Kirsten Crain

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for a stay and the granting of the respondents' motion to strike, the parties could not agree on costs.

The respondents sought partial indemnity costs.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded as this was public interest litigation.

The court held that the public interest nature of the case did not exempt the applicant from costs rules, especially given the voluminous record and the significant economic interests at stake.

The court fixed costs at $35,000 for the proponent and $12,500 for the City, payable by the applicant.

The applicant sought a stay of a zoning bylaw amendment that permitted a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Ottawa, pending its application for judicial review.

The respondents opposed the stay and moved to strike portions of the application and the applicant's affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The court granted the motion to strike in part, striking the challenge to the Municipal Support Resolution as statute-barred, striking portions of the application that impermissibly sought reasonableness review of the bylaw, and striking several affidavits and portions of affidavits that contained impermissible opinion evidence from unqualified laypersons.

The City of Ottawa appealed a remittal decision that found various provisions of a 1981 Agreement and related contracts governing golf course lands to be inoperative.

The Court of Appeal had previously struck down conveyancing provisions in the agreement for violating the rule against perpetuities.

The application judge held that without these provisions, the remaining obligations to operate a golf course in perpetuity fundamentally altered the parties' original bargain and were therefore inoperative.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the removal of the conveyancing provisions frustrated the balance of the agreement, rendering all provisions relating to the golf course lands void.

The respondents brought a medical malpractice action after the plaintiff suffered a severe brain injury from a cardiac arrest during a caesarean section.

The trial judge found the primary obstetrician (Dr. Padmore), the anesthesiologist (Dr. Jamensky), and the hospital liable for negligence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals of Dr. Padmore and the hospital, finding the trial judge erred in his legal causation analysis regarding their respective pre-delivery acts and omissions.

The Court dismissed Dr. Jamensky's appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that he breached the standard of care by prematurely converting the patient to a general anesthetic and that this negligence caused the cardiac arrest.

Dr. Jamensky was held solely liable for the agreed $12 million in damages.

The respondent hospital brought a motion to compel the applicant physician to answer questions and produce documents regarding his financial income, which he had refused during cross-examination.

The cross-examination occurred in the context of the physician's motion to stay the hospital's decision to suspend his privileges.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the physician did not allege financial harm in his stay motion, relying instead on loss of professional satisfaction and reputation.

Therefore, the financial information sought was irrelevant to the issues of irreparable harm and balance of convenience.

The defendant lawyer brought a requisition under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's claim arose from an aborted real estate transaction and alleged that the defendant lawyer was involved in the issuance of a municipal order to comply.

The court found that the defendant lawyer owed no duty of care to the plaintiff vendor and that the action appeared frivolous on its face.

The court ordered a stay of the proceeding and directed the Registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff that the court is considering dismissing the action.

The defendants successfully defeated the plaintiff's motion for an injunction regarding the processing and delivery of radioactive Cobalt-60.

The defendants sought costs of $69,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued for $25,000 or deferral to arbitration.

The court considered the complexity of the technical and legal issues, the high value of the goods involved, and the urgency of the motion.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $45,000 for fees and $6,000 for disbursements on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the defendants from terminating a cobalt irradiation services agreement and requiring continued supply of irradiated Cobalt‑60 pending arbitration.

The defendants terminated the agreement after the plaintiff failed to pay approximately $4 million in overdue invoices despite a contractual requirement that invoices be paid within 30 days.

Applying the RJR‑MacDonald test, the court held that although a limited serious issue existed regarding whether providing only 30 days’ notice to cure default complied with the duty of good faith, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and the balance of convenience strongly favoured the defendants.

The court found that cancer treatment supply would not be disrupted because the product could be sourced elsewhere and existing supplies remained usable.

The motion for an injunction was denied.

The appellant, a former director and executive, appealed a trial judgment that set aside his employment contract using the oppression remedy under s. 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The appellant argued the oppression remedy should only be available to minority shareholders unable to use normal corporate machinery, and that the trial judge improperly substituted her view for the Board's business judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the oppression remedy addresses abuse of power and is not limited to minority shareholders.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's finding that the Board's process in approving the contract was seriously flawed and fell outside the range of reasonableness.

Leave to appeal the costs award was also refused despite the respondents failing to prove fraud, given the appellant's egregious conduct.

The purchasers (respondents) entered into an agreement to buy a residential property from the vendor (appellant), conditional upon a satisfactory home inspection in the purchasers' sole and absolute discretion.

After receiving an inspection report identifying several deficiencies, the purchasers decided not to waive the condition and requested the return of their deposit.

The vendor refused, arguing the purchasers did not act reasonably or in good faith.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision ordering the return of the deposit, finding that the inspection condition imported both objective and subjective elements, and that the purchasers exercised their discretion honestly, in good faith, and reasonably based on the inspection report.