Marie Pier Dupont

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal concerning a dispute among investors in a residential subdivision.

The appeal, brought by 1750714 Ontario Inc. et al., was dismissed.

The court determined the quantum of costs payable by the appellants to the respondent, 1750738 Ontario Inc., on a partial indemnity basis, considering factors such as complexity, importance of issues, and party conduct.

The court awarded a global amount of $32,000 to the respondent.

The applicant, a city councillor, sought judicial review of a decision by the city council to suspend his remuneration for 270 days based on a report by the integrity commissioner finding he engaged in sexual harassment.

The applicant alleged bias against both the commissioner and the council.

The Divisional Court dismissed the claims against the commissioner, finding he acted fairly and reasonably accommodated the applicant's health issues.

However, the court found a reasonable apprehension of bias against the city council due to public statements and conduct by members before the investigation concluded.

The court quashed the council's sanction decision but, rather than remitting it, imposed the same 270-day suspension itself due to the severity of the misconduct and the lack of an unbiased decision-maker.

The applicant, the Mayor of Hawkesbury, sought an interlocutory stay of a municipal council decision regarding potential sanctions following an Integrity Commissioner's report finding she breached the Code of Conduct.

She also sought a sealing order for certain documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, noting the statutory requirement that such reports be made public.

The request for a sealing order was also dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding that a binding oral contract existed between the parties regarding a real estate development project, and ordering specific performance.

The trial judge found that the respondent's principal invested in the project on the condition that his son's company would build houses on 25% of the lots.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the oral contract's essential terms were certain, that a subsequent shareholder agreement's entire agreement clause did not invalidate the oral contract because it was not brought to the respondent's attention, and that specific performance was the appropriate remedy given the unique nature of the development and the inadequacy of damages.

The appellant, a police officer and union president, was suspended by the Chief of Police following criminal charges.

He brought an action for damages and declaratory relief, alleging Charter breaches and misfeasance in public office.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute fell under the collective agreement or required judicial review.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the collective agreement expressly did not apply to the appellant during his union secondment, and that an action is a permissible route to seek relief in the nature of judicial review, particularly when damages are claimed.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a police officer on leave serving as union president, was suspended and barred from police facilities following criminal charges.

He sued, alleging interference with his union duties.

The court found that the essential character of the dispute arose either under the collective agreement or the disciplinary regime of the Police Services Act.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction and the action was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $40,985.14 under Rule 20.06, arguing the plaintiff acted unreasonably by pursuing a partial summary judgment contrary to appellate authority.

The plaintiff argued for costs in the cause or on a partial indemnity basis, and claimed costs thrown away for a prior adjournment.

The court found the motion was unnecessary and contrary to the principles of proportionality, but noted that some of the preparatory work would be useful for the main action.

The court awarded the defendant fixed costs of $15,000, payable at the conclusion of the action.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant general contractor for unpaid work on a construction project.

The general contractor's contract with the owner had been terminated due to delays, and the general contractor alleged the subcontractor contributed to those delays.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring trial because granting partial summary judgment risked inconsistent findings with the main action between the owner and the general contractor, where the subcontractor's role in the delay was a live issue.