Lisa Brost

The court determined costs following a motion where the Respondent largely succeeded in having a settlement enforced on its terms.

The Respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $12,675.82, while the Applicants proposed $4,000.

The court, applying the principle of reasonableness, found the Respondent's claimed hours excessive for the nature of the motion, which involved interpreting a settlement agreement regarding release terms.

The court awarded the Respondent $5,000.00 plus HST and disbursements of $679.32.

The Applicants sought to enforce Minutes of Settlement but disputed the inclusion of a standard contribution and indemnity clause in the full and final release, arguing it was not part of the negotiation.

The Respondent contended that the clause was standard and that the Applicants failed to disclose a separate action against a surveyor, which would prejudice the Respondent if the clause were excluded.

The court found that a final settlement was reached, and the standard release with the contribution and indemnity clause was appropriate, as the Applicants had an obligation to disclose the separate action if they sought an exception.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the provincial Crown regarding alleged institutional abuse at the Children's Psychiatric Research Institute (CPRI) between 1963 and 2011.

The defendant consented to the certification.

The court reviewed the requirements under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act and found them satisfied, noting the commonality of issues and the vulnerability of the proposed class.

The action was certified on consent.

This motion concerned the certification of a class proceeding against the provincial Crown for alleged physical, emotional, and sexual abuse perpetrated against students at three residential schools for the deaf.

The action pleaded claims in negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, as well as Family Law Act derivative claims.

The motion for certification was brought on consent and was granted, as all criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied.

On a Rule 21 motion, the moving third party succeeded in striking a third party claim for contribution and indemnity arising from a shoreline dock project.

The court held that the plaintiffs' pleaded damages in the main action were confined to allegedly negligent repair work by the defendants, so the permit issuer's alleged negligence in granting a work permit could not support a claim-over.

Applying the duty of care framework, the court further held that the Public Lands Act and its regulations created duties owed to the public at large, not to individual permit applicants or related private parties.

Residual policy considerations also militated against imposing a private law duty of care on the province in relation to permit issuance.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim alleging entitlement to a survivor’s pension following the death of her separated spouse.

The court considered the Pension Benefits Act provisions governing mandatory joint and survivor pensions and the effect of spouses living separate and apart at the relevant time.

It held that because the spouses were separated when the first pension payment became due, the statutory requirement for a joint and survivor pension did not apply and the guardian of property was entitled to elect a single life annuity for the member’s benefit.

No duty of care was owed by the Public Guardian and Trustee to the separated spouse, and the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The statement of claim was struck, but leave was granted to deliver a fresh claim against the pension administrator only if based on a possible mandatory plan provision requiring a joint and survivor annuity.

The debtor company in CCAA proceedings brought a motion seeking a declaration that two Occupational Health and Safety Act prosecutions commenced by the provincial labour ministry were stayed by the CCAA initial order, or alternatively that the proceedings should be stayed under s. 11.1(4) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

The debtor argued that any conviction would result only in monetary fines, rendering the ministry a creditor whose claim should be addressed within the insolvency process.

The court held that regulatory prosecutions are not equivalent to creditor enforcement where no monetary obligation has yet crystallized and the regulator is acting in a prosecutorial capacity.

Applying the Supreme Court’s test for regulatory claims under insolvency legislation, the court concluded that the ministry was not acting as a creditor and that the proceedings remained regulatory in nature.

The motion to declare the prosecutions stayed was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old long-term employee, was summarily dismissed and arrested for theft after being confused with another employee by a private investigation firm retained by his employer.

The plaintiff sued the employer, its parent company, the investigation firm, and the police for various torts including negligent investigation and intentional infliction of mental distress.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing several claims.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reinstated the negligent investigation claim against the private investigation firm, recognizing that private investigators may owe a duty of care to suspects.

The court also reinstated the intentional infliction of mental distress claims against the investigation firm, the parent company, and the human resources manager.

The dismissal of the claims for inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations was upheld.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the court received written submissions regarding costs.

Given the complexity of the matter and the significant amount at issue, the successful respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $23,623.26 on a partial indemnity scale, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant insurer appealed a summary judgment ordering it to pay 80 percent of the defence costs incurred by the respondent's directors and officers in a class action for prospectus misrepresentation.

The insurer argued that a pollution exclusion clause in the directors' and officers' liability policy excluded coverage because the class action arose following a tailings dam collapse and the release of toxic waste.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the exclusion clause applied to pollution losses rather than all losses connected to a pollution-related claim, and that the allocation endorsement was properly applied since the claims involved both covered and uncovered losses.