M.J. Dermer

The responding party sought costs of $52,337.23 on a partial indemnity basis following the dismissal of the moving party's motions for leave to appeal a Mareva injunction and to adduce fresh evidence.

The moving party argued for costs in the range of $15,000.

The court noted the complexity of the motions but observed that the responding party failed to provide detailed docket entries.

Applying the principle of reasonable expectations, the court fixed the costs at $17,551.30 plus GST.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order granting a Mareva injunction and brought a preliminary motion to adduce fresh evidence on the leave application.

The Divisional Court held that it lacked jurisdiction under s. 134(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act to admit fresh evidence on an application for leave to appeal.

In any event, the proposed evidence did not meet the Palmer test because it could have been adduced before the motion judge became functus officio.

The court also denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no issue of general importance warranting appellate review.

The appellant, acting as receiver and manager for a general partner, appealed a judgment determining that the assets of a dissolved limited partnership must be distributed according to the priority scheme in s. 24 of the Limited Partnerships Act.

The appellant argued that the partnership agreement ousted the statutory priority and that assets should be distributed based on percentage interests.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that unequivocal language is required to oust the legislative priority provisions.

Because the partnership agreement did not explicitly address priority, the statutory scheme applied.