Nic Wall

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded all-inclusive costs of $200,000 to the successful respondent, Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership, against the appellants, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario.

The decision considered that this was the second level of appeal, the issues involved, and the respondent's success.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision upholding an arbitration award.

The arbitration panel found that Ontario and OLG breached a Gaming Revenue Sharing and Financial Agreement with the First Nations Partnership by unilaterally stopping payments of non-gaming revenue and complimentary services ("Comps") after outsourcing non-gaming amenities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, affirming the lower court's decision that the Agreement was breached and the damages awarded were appropriate.

The court declined to rule on the standard of review for commercial arbitration decisions post-Vavilov, finding the outcome would be the same under either standard, and also declined to address the "honour of the Crown" doctrine as it was not determinative.

The appellants, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and Ontario, appealed an arbitration decision that found they breached the Gaming Revenue Sharing and Financial Agreement (GRSFA) by ceasing to share certain non-gaming and complimentary revenues with the respondent, Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review for commercial arbitrations remains reasonableness post-Vavilov.

The court found the arbitration panel's contractual interpretation was reasonable, firmly rooted in the agreement's text and surrounding circumstances, and that the honour of the Crown doctrine was correctly applied to the government-to-government agreement.

The Court allowed the appeal and held that an Internet service provider may recover reasonable costs required to comply with a Norwich order, but not costs tied to obligations already imposed by the statutory notice and notice regime under ss. 41.25 and 41.26 of the Copyright Act.

Because the record did not permit a proper allocation between recoverable and non-recoverable work, the matter was remitted to the motion judge to determine the reasonable quantum, with Rogers permitted to adduce fresh evidence.