Martin Kaplan

The applicants brought a motion for costs following a successful hearing under the Mining Act, alleging the respondent's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious.

The applicants argued that the respondent's failure to call witnesses, aggressive cross-examination, and overall hearing strategy warranted a costs award.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the respondent's strategy was unsuccessful, it did not rise to the level of serious misconduct or bad faith required under Rule 23 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure to justify a discretionary costs award.

The appellants appealed an order allowing a receiver to sell a property free of their leases.

The receiver conceded that the motion judge's statement of the law was overly broad and that equitable considerations should have been weighed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order, and remitted the matter back to the Superior Court of Justice, noting the appellants were not given a proper opportunity to lead evidence on the equities.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of Justice Ground, and remitted the matter to the Superior Court of Justice.

The decision was based on the reasons provided in the companion endorsement in Court File C44279.

Costs were fixed at $4,000 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.