Margaret L. Waddell

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal on liability and partial success on the costs appeal, the respondents sought costs of the appeal totaling $675,880.87.

The appellant argued for no costs or a significantly reduced amount due to divided success and duplication of counsel by the amalgamated municipal respondents.

The Court of Appeal awarded the respondents one set of costs, fixed at $125,000, reflecting the straightforward nature of the legal issues, the duplication of argument, and the appellant's partial success on the costs appeal.

The appellant, operator of a retirement home, appealed the dismissal of its action for misfeasance in public office against the City of Hamilton and the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, arising from an order to comply issued in 1994.

The appellant also appealed the trial judge's costs award of over $4 million.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the misfeasance claim, finding the public officials acted lawfully and in good faith to protect vulnerable residents.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the award to a partial indemnity scale and adjusting for duplication of counsel after the City and Region amalgamated.

Matrix Integrated Solutions Limited appealed an order staying its action against Radiant Hospitality Systems Ltd. based on a forum selection clause in their Reseller Agreement.

Matrix alleged that its former employees breached fiduciary duties and that Radiant conspired with them.

The Court of Appeal held that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy were not contractual in nature and did not arise out of or in connection with the Reseller Agreement.

Therefore, the forum selection clause did not apply.

The appeal was allowed and the stay was set aside.

The plaintiff brought a class action against Health Canada for negligent regulation of a jaw implant device, limiting her claim to damages attributable to Health Canada's proportionate degree of fault.

The defendant brought a third-party claim against the dental surgeon and hospital for contribution and indemnity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the third-party claim, confirming that because the plaintiff limited her claim to the defendant's several liability, the defendant had no right to contribution.

The Court also clarified that fault can be apportioned against non-parties under the Negligence Act.

The defendants, eight major financial institutions, successfully defended an appeal of a decision denying certification of a class action regarding mortgage contracts.

The defendants sought their costs of the appeal.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded, asserting the proceeding was a test case and involved a matter of public interest under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Divisional Court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding the case was not a test case, did not raise a novel point of law, and was not a matter of public interest, but rather involved individual commercial mortgage contracts.

The court awarded the defendants modified partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000 per defendant.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motions to certify eight separate class proceedings against various financial institutions.

The claims alleged that the respondents incorrectly interpreted mortgage provisions regarding partial prepayment rights and early discharge penalties.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action as they relied on implied terms not supported by the express language of the mortgages.

The court also agreed that the proposed classes were overly broad, individual issues overwhelmed any common issues, and a class proceeding would be unmanageable and not the preferable procedure.

The appellants, home renovators, appealed the dismissal of their claim against the respondent home owners and the allowance of the home owners' counterclaim.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in placing the burden of obtaining building permits and licences on the contractor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual findings regarding the contract, scope and quality of work, extras, and the cost of remedial work were supported by the evidence, including the finding that the home owners were incorrectly told a permit was not necessary.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondents were awarded costs of the appeal, fixed at $6,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant, Gold Financial Corp., appealed two orders of the Superior Court of Justice and sought an order that one-half of the proceeds of the sale of the Puslinch land be paid into court.

The motion judge had concluded that neither the Notice nor the Share Pledge Agreement was entitled to any weight and that the appellant's General Security Agreement did not support any claim to an interest in the land.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusions and dismissed the appeal with costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent College sought costs following its successful defence of an appeal upholding the revocation of the appellant's dental license.

The appellant argued that the costs claimed were excessive and that the appeal raised novel issues of jurisdiction and natural justice.

The Divisional Court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent, fixing the amount at $26,000 plus disbursements, noting that costs should reflect a fair and reasonable amount rather than an exact measure of actual costs.

The moving party brought a motion to quash the responding party's cross-appeal, arguing that the responding party was required to obtain leave to cross-appeal because the cross-appeal raised different issues than the moving party's appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that under Rule 61.07(1.1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a respondent may serve a notice of cross-appeal without obtaining leave if the appellant has already been granted leave to appeal, regardless of whether the cross-appeal relates to different issues.

The appellant, a dental surgeon, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct, revoking his licence, and ordering him to pay $250,000 in costs.

He argued there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, a denial of natural justice due to refused adjournments, and that the penalty and costs were excessive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the findings of misconduct and the licence revocation, finding no apprehension of bias or denial of natural justice, and agreeing that the appellant was ungovernable.

However, the court found the costs award unduly high and reduced it to $200,000.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal from a decision refusing certification of a proposed class proceeding, the respondent sought costs of the appeal.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs, agreeing with the motions judge that the case involved a novel question of law regarding the interpretation of s. 347 of the Criminal Code and was a matter of public interest.

The court found that in these circumstances, the appellant should not be penalized with costs despite being unsuccessful.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class proceeding against the respondent bank.

The proposed class action alleged that the respondent received interest on cash advances at a criminal rate, in violation of s. 347(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and sought restitutionary, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's findings that the restitutionary claims did not raise common issues and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for resolving the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.