Paul Marshall

The appellants challenged an order striking their contempt motion without leave to amend.

The court held the motion judge made no legal or principled error, upheld the costs framework used below, and dismissed both merits and costs-related challenges.

The appellant, Ontario, appealed a case management judge's order that directed multiple motions, including motions to strike, to proceed concurrently with the respondents' motion for leave to pursue a bad faith claim against the Crown.

Ontario argued that section 17(2) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 imposes an automatic stay on the entire proceeding until leave is granted.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that the statutory stay applies to all claims in the proceeding, not just those against the Crown, and that the court's inherent jurisdiction cannot override this statutory mandate.

The appeal was granted, and all motions other than the leave motion were stayed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated May 9, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the responding parties to pay $5,000 in costs to the moving parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that jurisdiction over the proposed appeal lies with the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The applicant sought to enforce an option to purchase agreement for a property or, alternatively, the return of a $25,000 down payment.

The respondent argued the option expired and the payment was forfeited.

The court found the option agreement had expired and was not renewed, and the respondent's failure to provide compliant rent receipts was not causally linked to the applicant's inability to secure financing.

However, the court granted relief from forfeiture for the $12,000 in monthly credits, finding it unconscionable for the respondent to retain this amount given it exceeded the contract's cap, but allowed the respondent to retain the initial $13,000 option fee.

The applicants initiated a proceeding by application seeking declarations and substantial damages related to an anaerobic digester, and subsequently moved to add a party and for injunctive relief to prevent the digester's reactivation.

The court found the application procedurally inappropriate and outside its jurisdiction under the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly due to the presence of material facts in dispute and the complex nature of the claims (nuisance and negligence).

Consequently, the court converted the application into an action, directing the applicants to file a Statement of Claim, and denied the immediate injunctive relief on the basis that it was not available in an improperly commenced application.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal, the respondents sought costs.

The appellants, who were self-represented, argued that costs should be awarded against the respondents for refusing to settle, or alternatively, postponed until the end of the action.

The court rejected the appellants' arguments and awarded costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the appellants' conduct, while unreasonable at times, did not warrant elevated costs.

The court also reduced the costs claimed by one counsel representing multiple defendants to account for economies of scale.

Costs were ordered payable within 90 days.

The defendants, having successfully obtained a dismissal of the plaintiffs' action on limitation grounds, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the issues were not complex and that allegations of fraud were not adjudicated.

The court considered the complexity of the original claim, the significant amount claimed, the plaintiffs' pursuit of a statute-barred action despite early notice, and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.

Applying Rule 57.01 factors, the court found that the plaintiffs' conduct warranted an award of costs higher than partial indemnity.

The self-represented appellants appealed a Master's decision denying them leave to amend their statement of claim and prohibiting the father from acting as agent for his adult son.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master correctly concluded that the proposed amendments lacked material facts, failed to properly plead conspiracy, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The Court also upheld the Master's rulings on the respondents' cross-motions and her refusal to address an unpleaded conflict of interest allegation against opposing counsel.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs had previously commenced an action in 2011 based on the same core facts, which was dismissed as abandoned.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period was postponed due to fraudulent concealment, claiming they only discovered confirming evidence in 2013.

The court found the 2011 claim provided irrefutable evidence that the plaintiffs had discovered their claim by July 2011.

The court rejected the fraudulent concealment argument, granted summary judgment, and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff brought an action for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation against the police defendants after criminal charges against him were stayed by the Crown.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred because it was commenced more than two years after the stay was entered.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period did not begin until the one-year period for the Crown to recommence the stayed charges had expired.

The court held that a Crown stay constitutes a favourable termination of proceedings and the limitation clock begins to run on the day the stay is entered.

The action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that denied their claim for over $1.2 million in costs following a lengthy proceeding.

The underlying application concerned a nuisance claim against a greenhouse and anaerobic digester operated by a court-appointed receiver.

The Board had found that both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct and declined to award costs to either side.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the Board's discretionary costs decision.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for an upcoming appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court ordered the hearing to proceed via video conference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums.

The plaintiff, a restaurant tenant, sued the landlord and its director for wrongful lease termination and damages.

The landlord counterclaimed for accelerated rent.

The court found the landlord unlawfully terminated the lease, awarding the tenant damages for lost business, deposit reimbursement, and duct cleaning costs.

The counterclaim was dismissed, and punitive damages and personal liability for the director were denied.

The plaintiff, Tarik Bouragba, brought a motion seeking leave to amend his Statement of Claim and lift a stay of proceedings previously ordered.

The defendants opposed the motion and brought cross-motions to prohibit the plaintiff's father, a non-lawyer, from representing him, and to stay the proceeding due to unpaid costs orders.

The court granted the cross-motion prohibiting the father from acting as legal representative.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings, finding the proposed amendments lacked material facts, were incomprehensible, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court ordered that all outstanding costs awards must be paid before the plaintiffs can bring any further motions.

The appellant, Julie Lawrence, appealed the order of the motion judge regarding the disposition of her late father's estate.

The central issue was whether a $50,000 TD line of credit taken out prior to the deceased's marriage to the respondent (the estate trustee and second wife) was a debt of the estate or secured against the matrimonial home.

The motion judge found the estate liable for the debt.

The appellant also alleged the motion judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias and improperly refused an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no improper exercise of discretion regarding the adjournment or costs award.

The appellant sought to set aside a decision by Justice Pardu refusing to extend the time to appeal a Superior Court decision.

Justice Pardu had found that the appellant demonstrated intention to appeal within the prescribed time and accepted his explanation for the delay, with no prejudice to the respondent.

However, she dismissed the motion on the sole ground that the grounds of appeal were devoid of merit.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that the appellant's claims were directly related to his employment and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator under the settlement agreement.

This costs endorsement addresses the costs arising from a motion by the City of Mississauga to amend its Statement of Defence and cross-motions by the plaintiff, Amanda Martin.

The City was entirely successful on its motion and substantially successful against the plaintiff's cross-motions.

The court considered the principles governing costs awards, including the five purposes of costs rules and the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Despite the plaintiff's arguments for divided success and an offer to settle, the court found the City largely successful and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court reduced the City's claimed costs, fixing them at $9,000, payable by the plaintiff within 90 days, noting the plaintiff's conduct contributed to the length and costs of the proceedings.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the City of Mississauga sought leave to amend its Statement of Defence to withdraw an allegation of just cause termination.

The Plaintiff opposed, arguing this constituted a withdrawal of admissions under Rule 51.05, and brought a cross-motion to compel production of an investigation report and permit discovery on the cause allegation.

The court granted the City's motion, finding that withdrawing a just cause allegation was an amendment under Rule 26.01, not a withdrawal of an admission.

The Plaintiff's cross-motion to compel production and discovery was largely dismissed as premature, but the City was ordered to provide its position on the report's production within 7 days and serve its Affidavit of Documents within 45 days.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision made by the Normal Farm Practices and Protection Board regarding its internal processes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that judicial review of interim orders is only available in exceptional circumstances to prevent fragmentation and piecemeal proceedings.

The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying intervention before the board's final decision.

Costs were awarded to the respondent receiver in the fixed amount of $2,000.