Liza Swale

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the release of the Canada RFD Decision in the Fontaine litigation.

The court considered whether the unsuccessful Respondents should be awarded costs, despite not prevailing on the motion.

The court reviewed the parties’ written submissions and the relevant legal principles, ultimately concluding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a costs award to the unsuccessful party.

The court declined to order costs of the hearing.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a Request for Direction seeking to summarily dismiss or strike a proceeding known as "Metatawabin RFD #2," which was filed by several St. Anne's Indian Residential School claimants.

The claimants alleged that Canada breached prior court orders by failing to disclose updated Person of Interest reports to individuals whose claims had already been concluded.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice summarily dismissed and struck the claimants' request, finding that Canada complied with its obligations under the prior orders and was not required to disclose the reports for concluded claims.

Additionally, the court ruled that the claimants' request was time-barred and that certain requested remedies were moot or outside the court's jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs initiated a class action against numerous governmental and international entities, including Pope Francis and Queen Elizabeth II, alleging harms from COVID-19 protocols and constitutional infringements.

Several defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the statement of claim to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to its rambling nature, irrelevant historical allegations, and lack of specific legal basis for claims.

The action was dismissed in its entirety against all defendants, with no costs awarded.

The applicant sought costs of $15,000 previously fixed by Kimmel J. relating to an injunction granted against the respondents for breaching COVID-19 public health orders.

The respondents argued they should be excused from paying costs as public interest litigants.

The court rejected this argument, finding that by choosing to disobey the law rather than challenge it directly, the respondents engaged in conduct harmful to the public interest.

The respondents were ordered to pay $15,000 in costs.

Following the dismissal of the respondents' motion for Charter damages due to procedural errors, the applicant sought costs for the hearing and for a prior hearing.

The respondents argued they were public interest litigants and no costs should be awarded.

The court rejected this argument, finding that public interest litigants are not entitled to cause wasted costs through basic procedural errors.

The court awarded the applicant $15,000 in partial indemnity costs for the recent hearing and deferred the prior costs pending a determination on the merits.

The respondents brought an interim motion seeking Charter damages and a declaration of invalidity regarding COVID-19 public health regulations that restricted their restaurant operations.

The court dismissed the motion on threshold jurisdictional grounds, finding that the respondents failed to commence an originating process claiming such relief and that their Notice of Motion was procedurally defective.

The court held it had no jurisdiction to grant final Charter damages on an interlocutory motion.

The appellants sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Ontario Court of Justice from hearing charges against them under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, arguing that the Act was ultra vires, that their claims arose under federal common law, that the prosecution was precluded by inter-jurisdictional immunity, and that the court was institutionally biased.

The application judge dismissed the application, save for prohibiting a specific justice of the peace from conducting the trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that constitutional and aboriginal rights claims must be raised as defences in the court having jurisdiction over the charges, and that there was no merit to the claim of institutional bias.