Vaso Maric

The applicants brought a motion for costs following a successful hearing under the Mining Act, alleging the respondent's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious.

The applicants argued that the respondent's failure to call witnesses, aggressive cross-examination, and overall hearing strategy warranted a costs award.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the respondent's strategy was unsuccessful, it did not rise to the level of serious misconduct or bad faith required under Rule 23 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure to justify a discretionary costs award.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal which rescinded a previous order requiring the respondents to contribute over $2 million toward mining development expenses.

The Tribunal had found that an oral agreement between the parties' predecessors established the respondents' interest as a 'free carried, perpetual, non-contributing' interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence and conclusion that a binding oral agreement existed.

The applicant sought an Order to Pay against the respondents for development expenditures on co-owned mining claims under s. 181(2) of the Mining Act.

Following an interim order and written submissions, the respondents consented to the issuance of the order subject to certain procedural conditions.

The Tribunal held that consent is not required under s. 181(2) and issued two orders: one establishing procedural steps for the upcoming liability hearing, including document exchange and discoveries, and a concurrent s. 181(2) Order to Pay.

The applicant, a co-owner of the Chester 2 Properties, brought an application under s. 181(2) of the Mining Act seeking payment from the respondent co-owners for their proportionate share of development expenditures.

The respondents had failed to contribute their 7.5% share of the costs over a four-year period.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay US$ 2,065,492.00, representing their share of the expenditures, plus interest.

The applicant and respondents are co-owners of mining properties.

The applicant sought an order under section 181 of the Mining Act for the respondents to pay their share of development expenditures.

The respondents claimed an oral agreement exempted them from these costs.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal determined the procedural steps for the liability phase of the hearing.

The Tribunal also held that an order under section 181(2) must be issued before a hearing on liability can proceed under section 181(4), and directed the applicant to confirm whether it requests such an order.

The appellants sought to transfer a proceeding before the Mining and Lands Tribunal to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent had commenced the Tribunal proceeding under section 181(2) of the Mining Act to require the appellants to pay their share of expenditures for mining development.

The appellants argued that an alleged oral agreement absolved them of any obligation to contribute and that this contract matter should be adjudicated by the Superior Court as a preliminary issue.

The application judge refused the transfer.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to transfer, finding that the Tribunal had specialized expertise in mining matters and that section 181(4) of the Mining Act provided the appellants with a procedure to raise their oral agreement defence before the Tribunal.

The applicant sought declarations that a life insurance policy issued in 1982 should be enforced according to its original terms, including paid‑up value calculations appearing on the face of the policy.

The respondent insurer alleged that the paid‑up values in the policy were inserted in error and sought rectification to reduce them by a factor of five.

The record contained conflicting affidavit evidence and competing expert opinions regarding the intended structure of the policy and the calculation of paid‑up values.

The court held that the disputes involved material factual conflicts, credibility assessments, and complex issues relating to rectification and limitation periods.

As a result, the matter could not properly be resolved on an application record and required a trial.

The appellant appealed a judgment regarding the interpretation of a Quit Claim deed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Quit Claim deed was clear, unambiguous, and determinative, rejecting the argument that its meaning required reference to other documents.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the substantial costs order was denied.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action alleging vertical price-fixing conspiracies in the sale of engineering resins.

The plaintiff cross-appealed, seeking to expand the class definition to include Tier 1 manufacturers.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary, fact-driven conclusions regarding the class definition and the common issues of loss and liability.

The appellant, a shell company, brought a motion to review an order requiring it to post security for costs pending its appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in the single judge's conclusion that the appellant had no assets to satisfy an adverse costs award and that the appeal had little to no merit.

The appellant was ordered to post security within ten days, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.