Montana Licari

The respondent sought costs against the applicant following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to recuse the Tribunal Chair.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct in bringing the recusal motion was unreasonable and frivolous, as it lacked factual evidence of bias and was an improper collateral attack on previous interlocutory decisions.

The Tribunal awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis, declining to award substantial indemnity costs as the conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of a production order pending a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal found that it had no inherent jurisdiction to grant a stay and that neither the Farm Implements Act nor its Rules of Procedure provided such jurisdiction.

The Tribunal declined to apply the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that the applicant must first obtain an extension from the Divisional Court before bringing its motion for leave to appeal.

The motion was dismissed.

The respondent, CLAAS of America Inc., sought costs of $5,348.40 against the applicant, Sunova Implement Ltd., following two motions for the production of documents.

The Tribunal found that Sunova's conduct in bringing its own motion without providing evidence of relevancy, and in resisting CLAAS's motion without evidence that the requested documents were irrelevant, was unreasonable.

The Tribunal awarded costs to CLAAS in the requested amount of $5,348.40 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant brought a motion seeking the recusal of the Chair of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the Chair's previous unfavourable rulings on production motions.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide cogent evidence to rebut the strong presumption of judicial impartiality.

The Tribunal concluded that making an unfavourable interlocutory decision does not demonstrate pre-judgment or bias, and that the recusal motion was an improper collateral attack on the underlying motion decisions.

The respondent distributor brought a motion for the production of financial and other documents used by the applicant dealer's expert in preparing a draft report on damages arising from the termination of their dealership agreement.

The applicant argued the motion was premature because the expert report was only a draft.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding the documents were relevant to the assessment of damages and that foundational documents relied upon by an expert must be disclosed to enable the opposing party to assess its position.

The applicant, a terminated farm implements dealer, brought a motion seeking the production of financial and sales documents from the respondent manufacturer and a successor dealership.

The applicant argued the documents were necessary to calculate damages based on the successor's financial performance.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent did not have possession, control, or power over the successor's documents.

Furthermore, the Tribunal declined to order production from the successor dealership as a non-party, concluding that the requested documents were not relevant to the established method of calculating damages based on past performance, and that the prejudice of disclosing confidential information to a competitor outweighed any unfairness to the applicant.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. dated December 21, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents in the amount of $7,500.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following the Plaintiffs' successful certification motion in a class action.

The court, while acknowledging the Plaintiffs' entitlement to costs on a partial indemnity scale, disallowed a claim for nearly $20,000 in docketed time spent on preparing the costs submissions themselves, deeming it novel and not to be encouraged.

The court rejected the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiffs' fees were too high, noting that both sides invested similar hours and the difference in dollar amounts reflected firm structure rather than overwork.

The Plaintiffs were awarded all-inclusive costs of $496,000.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a national class action against the defendants regarding alleged defects and failures to warn associated with Allergan breast implants, specifically concerning risks of BIA-ALCL, premature rupture, and ASIA/BII.

The court found that the plaintiffs met all the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including demonstrating a plausible methodology for their claims through expert evidence, despite significant scientific debate.

The action was certified against all defendants, expanding a previous partial certification order.