Sophie Gagnier

The plaintiff sought leave to make further submissions on whether he was required to pay the standard 13% HST on a costs award or only the net HST the defendant would pay after receiving credits under the Excise Tax Act.

The court held that it was functus officio, as the original costs decision was final and the issue of HST credits was a new issue, not a clerical error or accidental omission.

The fact that the order had not yet been entered did not permit the court to vary its decision.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's $1.8 million claim regarding pension benefits, the successful defendant sought costs of over $900,000.

The plaintiff argued the costs were excessive and that the defendant's joint offer to settle did not trigger substantial indemnity costs because the co-defendant had settled via a Pierringer Agreement.

The court agreed that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted but awarded partial indemnity costs of $425,000 plus HST and disbursements, finding the time spent reasonable given the complexity and the plaintiff's evasive conduct during discoveries.

The plaintiff, a former Vice President of Human Resources, sued his former employer for breach of a verbal contract and negligent misrepresentation regarding his pension benefits.

He alleged the employer's former president verbally agreed to pay all costs to transfer his previous pensionable service to the employer's Supplementary Pension Plan, or alternatively, to set up a fund to cover the difference.

He also claimed he relied on an erroneous pension estimate provided by a subordinate when deciding to retire.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged verbal agreement and that it was unreasonable for him, given his expertise and knowledge of the pension plan's restrictions, to rely on the subordinate's inaccurate estimate.

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 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.

La Cité collégiale (l'applicant) a présenté une motion pour contraindre le Régime de retraite des collèges d’arts appliqués et de technologie (le respondent) à répondre à des questions refusées ou prises en délibéré lors de l'interrogatoire préalable d'Evan Howard.

La Cité alléguait que M. Brousseau, un ancien employé, avait subi une perte financière due à un écart entre sa rente mensuelle projetée et réelle, et que le CAAT avait un devoir de diligence et fiduciaire.

Le tribunal a examiné la pertinence des questions en vertu de la Règle 31.06 des Règles de procédure civile et du principe de proportionnalité.

Certaines questions ont été jugées non pertinentes (liées au travail antérieur de M. Howard comme avocat, ou demandant une opinion d'expert), tandis que d'autres ont été jugées pertinentes pour établir les connaissances du CAAT en matière de pension, ses communications avec les collèges et les membres, et les changements apportés à ses informations depuis 2012.

Le tribunal a ordonné que les réponses aux questions pertinentes soient fournies par écrit dans les 45 jours.

The applicants, a French-language public school board and a parent, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to suspend new regulations enacted by the Ontario Federation of School Athletics Associations (OFSAA).

The applicants argued that the regulations, which restricted students outside designated attendance zones from participating in OFSAA-sanctioned competitions in their designated sport, violated section 23 of the Charter by disproportionately impacting minority language students attending a specialized sports-study program.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious constitutional issue, irreparable harm due to the potential assimilation and loss of students, and a balance of convenience favouring the applicants.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

Dans cette motion interlocutoire, la partie requérante demandait principalement la radiation de la déclaration en raison d’un manquement à un engagement de conserver des courriels produits lors de l’enquête préalable, ou subsidiairement des ordonnances de préservation documentaire.

Le tribunal a conclu que le manquement résultait vraisemblablement de l’inattention ou de l’inadvertance plutôt que d’une inconduite intentionnelle, et a refusé la réparation draconienne sollicitée.

Compte tenu de la complexité de l’action relative à un déficit allégué dans un régime de retraite et de l’étendue temporelle des faits, le tribunal a néanmoins ordonné la conservation et la communication aux fins d’examen de comptes courriel pertinents et a prolongé l’enquête préalable à un total de vingt‑quatre heures.

Le succès ayant été mitigé, le tribunal s’est dit fortement enclin à n’adjuger aucuns dépens.

Parents brought an application alleging that the refusal to provide a door‑to‑door school bus stop for their children attending a French-language Catholic elementary school violated their rights under s. 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They sought an order compelling the school transportation consortium to provide a stop directly in front of their residence.

The court held that the consortium’s transportation decisions were subject to Charter scrutiny because the consortium exercised a governmental function delegated by school boards.

However, the applicants failed to demonstrate that the existing bus stops, located approximately 60 metres and 150 metres from the residence, created a meaningful barrier to access to French-language education.

The court concluded that the inconvenience of walking that distance did not constitute a denial of minority-language education rights under s. 23.