Malliha Wilson

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim to rectify a promissory note and the dissolution of an interim injunction, the successful defendants sought costs.

The defendants relied on contractual indemnity provisions in the promissory note and guarantee to claim full indemnity costs.

The court held that the plain language of the contracts entitled the main defendants to full indemnity costs.

The costs claimed were found to be reasonable under Rule 57.01, with a minor deduction for a defendant lawyer's time spent attending trial as a spectator.

A separate defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs sought to rectify a promissory note, arguing that the fixed due date of December 31, 2015, did not reflect the true intent of the parties and was a mistake.

Alternatively, they argued there was a subsequent agreement to defer payment until a new financing deal was completed.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the written terms of the note accurately reflected the parties' agreement and that no subsequent agreement to defer enforcement had been reached.

The interim injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the note was dissolved.

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a motion judge's decision that allowed an Ontario supervisory judge to sit outside the province with judges from British Columbia and Quebec to hear motions regarding a national class action settlement, without requiring a video link to an Ontario courtroom.

The Court of Appeal held that while superior courts have the inherent jurisdiction to conduct hearings outside their home province, the open court principle under section 135 of the Courts of Justice Act requires a video link to a reasonably accessible Ontario courtroom.

The appeal was allowed to amend the order to require a video link.

The appellant union filed grievances claiming damages for employees' exposure to second-hand smoke in correctional facilities.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to award damages for injuries compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, regardless of whether the claim was framed in tort or contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the substance of the claim precludes the Board from awarding damages for compensable injuries.

A 14-year-old child was apprehended and eventually placed in a secure treatment centre by court order.

The child's family sued the treatment centre and its social worker for negligence, claiming $40,000,000 in damages on the basis that the defendants treated the child as if she had been abused by her parents, which allegedly prevented her reintegration into the family.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that recognizing a duty of care owed by child protection service providers to the family of an apprehended child would create a serious potential for conflict with their paramount statutory duty to act in the best interests of the child.

The Court allowed the appeal and struck the statement of claim.