Margaret A. Hoy

The appellants sought to set aside an order requiring them to pay security for costs of their appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court imposed restrictions on future motions by the appellants, requiring leave of a judge and satisfaction of all outstanding costs orders before any further motions could be brought.

The decision reflects the court's response to a prolonged pattern of litigation among nine siblings over their late father's estate, which had resulted in multiple prior appellate decisions, contempt findings, and substantial unpaid costs orders.

The appellant employer appealed a trial decision finding it liable for wrongful dismissal and awarding the respondent employee damages.

The employee, a casino dealer, suffered a permanent workplace injury and was placed on modified duties for two years before being terminated for frustration of contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the employment relationship was not restricted to the dealer position and that the employer failed to prove frustration of contract.

The defendants brought a motion to strike 34 paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim for failing to comply with the rules of pleading.

The plaintiff's action alleged excessive force and unlawful arrest during a mental health apprehension.

The court found that the impugned paragraphs breached the rules of pleading by including irrelevant facts, pleading evidence, containing scandalous or argumentative statements, and making detailed legal arguments.

The motion was granted, the offending paragraphs were struck, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his action for damages arising from an alleged unlawful arrest on October 14, 2006.

The appellant claimed the trial judge erred in finding he was intoxicated, belligerent and aggressive, and that the arrest was without cause.

The appellant also argued the trial judge failed to properly consider the effect of his acquittal on criminal charges.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the trial judge's factual findings were supported by evidence and his legal conclusions regarding the elements of causing a disturbance were correct.

The court also confirmed that an acquittal on criminal charges does not preclude a finding of unlawful arrest in civil proceedings due to different parties and burdens of proof.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the plaintiff regarding an outstanding Small Claims Court judgment.

The parties had agreed to settle for $24,000, but the defendant refused to sign the plaintiff's standard Minutes of Settlement because they did not include a separate full and final release.

The court found that the Minutes of Settlement implied a release and that a separate full and final release was not appropriate as the settlement was strictly limited to the judgment debt.

The court held that the defendant repudiated the settlement by refusing to sign the documents and pay the funds, and dismissed the motion.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a motion to set aside a security for costs order made by Gillese J.A. The order required each moving party to post $15,000 as security for costs in their appeal from a lower court decision.

The motion was brought almost seven months after the deadline prescribed by Rule 61.16(6), which requires service and filing within four days of the order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving parties had formed a bona fide intention to challenge the order within the required timeframe, the lack of merit in the proposed motion and significant prejudice to the respondent outweighed these factors.

The court emphasized the respondent's history of unpaid costs orders and the vexatious nature of the litigation.

Following a motion where the plaintiff was successful, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $1,588.60.

Following a mid-trial settlement of a personal injury claim for $450,000, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the plaintiffs.

The court significantly reduced the plaintiffs' claimed fees from over $335,000 to $80,000, citing bloated docketing, failure to correct discovery evidence under Rule 31.09, and the late discovery of damaging social media evidence.

Certain disbursements for expert witnesses and investigators were also disallowed as not reasonably necessary.

The plaintiff brought a motion for security for costs against the defendant regarding the defendant's appeal of a Deputy Judge's decision.

The court applied Rule 61.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assessing whether there was good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and whether the defendant had insufficient assets in Ontario.

Finding that the appeal had minimal prospect of success and that there was no evidence of sufficient assets to pay costs, the court ordered the defendant to pay $8,000 into court as security for costs.

The plaintiff, Richelle Milloy, was the successful party in a 10-day trial and sought partial indemnity costs of $79,517.59.

The defendant, Complex Services Inc., argued that the plaintiff recovered less than one-third of the claimed damages and that costs should be proportionate to the award, proposing $20,000 plus disbursements and HST (approx. $26,134).

The court, applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Boucher and Zesta Engineering, noted the plaintiff's bill lacked detail, the case was of average complexity, and the litigation, initially ordinary procedure, continued under simplified procedure with a recovery of $32,137.18.

The court also discounted costs for a plaintiff's motion at trial and found the 210 hours spent on litigation excessive given the recovery.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff at $30,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff, a former table games dealer, sued for wrongful dismissal after her employment was terminated due to a permanent shoulder injury.

The defendant employer argued frustration of contract, having provided modified duties for over two years.

The court found that the employer's failure to offer alternative suitable positions within the organization, despite the employee's qualifications and exemplary record, constituted 'self-induced frustration' and prevented the employer from relying on the doctrine of frustration of contract.

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, awarding damages for wrongful dismissal based on common-law reasonable notice.

The plaintiff was awarded damages of $28,503.25.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $57,131.45, while the defendants argued for no costs due to the plaintiff's failure to use the simplified procedure under Rule 76, despite the judgment being under $100,000.

The court found it was not reasonable for the action to proceed under ordinary procedure but declined to deny all costs.

Applying the discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, and considering factors like proportionality, the modest damages, and inefficiencies, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $15,000, all inclusive, for the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for damages for assault, negligence, and Charter breaches against the police.

The appellant argued the officer, who was driving an unmarked vehicle, was not readily identifiable and lacked reasonable grounds to arrest him for failing to stop.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or factual findings that the officer was identifiable and had reasonable grounds to arrest under the Criminal Code.

This costs judgment followed a simplified procedure trial where the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The defendants, represented by salaried counsel, sought costs of $68,093.99.

The court considered the plaintiff's modest financial circumstances, the complexity of the issues, and the plaintiff's conduct, which included disclosure problems and "wild" settlement offers that significantly exceeded the Simplified Rules' limits.

Applying principles of fairness and reasonableness, and acknowledging the defendants' reasonable hourly rates and disbursements, the court fixed costs at $35,000, inclusive of disbursements.

This decision balanced the need for indemnification of the successful party with the unsuccessful litigant's ability to pay and access to justice concerns.

A citizen reported criminal activity by neighbours' sons to police, claiming she was promised confidentiality.

The police officer did not disclose that the interview was being videotaped.

The neighbours' sons were arrested, and the citizen's identity and videotaped interview were included in Crown disclosure.

The citizen was subsequently harassed and threatened by the neighbours, leading to post-traumatic stress disorder and relocation.

The trial judge found the police liable for breach of confidence and awarded general damages of $345,000, plus Family Law Act damages.

The appellants appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a promise of confidentiality, that necessary elements for the claim were not established, and that damages were excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings and damage award.

The plaintiff sued the police for negligence, false arrest, assault, malicious prosecution, and Charter breaches arising from an incident at a house party.

The court found that the police officer assaulted the plaintiff without justification, falsely arrested him without reasonable and probable grounds, and maliciously prosecuted him for assaulting a peace officer.

The plaintiff was awarded general damages for assault, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, special damages for the cost of defending the criminal charge, and punitive damages, totaling $28,503.25.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $6,379.48.

The plaintiff argued that each party should bear their own costs or that costs should be fixed at $1,500.

The court applied Rule 57.01 and the principles from Boucher, noting the motion was of average complexity but required a detailed summary of proceedings.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $6,000 all-inclusive.

Following decisions striking the mortgagors' statement of claim, dismissing their motion to amend, and granting summary judgment against them on a mortgage, the successful mortgagees sought costs.

The mortgagors also sought costs, arguing they made a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found the offer did not meet Rule 49 criteria as the judgment exceeded the offer and the offer did not account for the mortgagors' separate action for damages.

Given the contractual agreement for costs of enforcement and the mortgagors' obstructive litigation tactics, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $65,000 to the New Haven parties and $7,000 to Community Trust Company.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against several police officers and the police services board for false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and breach of his Charter rights following his arrest for causing a disturbance and assaulting a police officer.

The plaintiff had been acquitted of the criminal charges.

The court found that the plaintiff was severely intoxicated, belligerent, and aggressive on the night in question, and that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety, concluding that the arrest and detention were lawful, the investigation was not negligent, and there was no malice or Charter breach.

The Applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board, which declined to extend the time for service of a Notice of Disciplinary Hearing on two police officers beyond the six-month period under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court found that the Board breached procedural fairness by not providing the Applicants with the officers' submissions or an opportunity to respond.

The Court also found the Board's decision unreasonable for failing to consider the causes of delay holistically.

The Board's decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.