Mary Roberts

The defendants, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario and the Attorney General of Canada, successfully moved to strike the plaintiffs' action as res judicata and an abuse of process.

In this costs endorsement, the plaintiffs argued for an exemption from costs as public interest litigants.

The court rejected this argument, finding the action was primarily intended to prevent regulatory charges from being heard, was substantially similar to previous actions, and therefore constituted an abuse of process not in the public interest.

The court applied the five factors from *St. James Preservation Society* and the criteria from *Incredible Electronics Inc.* to determine that the plaintiffs did not qualify as public interest litigants.

Costs were awarded to Ontario and Canada.

Following a three-week trial where the plaintiff's action for negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and defamation was dismissed, the successful defendants sought costs of over $523,000.

The defendants relied on an offer to settle for $100,000.

The court found that the defendants' fees were disproportionate and that the federal government had failed to meet its document production obligations, which unnecessarily lengthened the trial.

Balancing the defendants' success and offer to settle against their improper conduct regarding document disclosure, the court fixed costs at $100,000 all-inclusive.

The defendants, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and the Attorney General of Canada, moved to strike the plaintiffs' action as an abuse of process and res judicata.

The court found the action was substantially similar to two prior dismissed proceedings and was primarily intended to delay regulatory hunting and fishing prosecutions against the individual plaintiffs.

The court determined that constitutional issues related to the prosecutions should be raised in the Ontario Court of Justice, and other land claims could be pursued in a separate, ongoing action (17-71837).

The motion to strike was granted.

The plaintiff sued for damages totalling approximately two million dollars, alleging negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and defamation against the Attorney General of Canada and a contract manager, Paul Piché.

The claims arose from the plaintiff's participation in a 2007 Request for Standing Offer (RFSO) where his bid was largely prepared by a competitor, leading to a bid-rigging investigation and charges (later stayed).

The plaintiff argued that negligent answers to RFSO questions induced his actions and that Piché's statements to the Competition Bureau were defamatory.

The court dismissed all claims, finding no duty of care owed by the defendants to provide legal advice on the Competition Act, no negligent misrepresentation or breach of standard of care, and no malice in the defamation claim.

The court also determined that the plaintiff's reliance was unreasonable and that his alleged damages were unproven and too remote, largely attributable to his own contributory negligence.