N. Joan Kasozi

The moving parties' motion for leave to appeal and for a stay of various orders was dismissed as abandoned.

The court ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the Receiver.

This endorsement addresses motions by the Tamil Rights Group (TRG) and the Tamil Coalition (National Council of Canadian Tamils, Canadian Tamil Academy, Canadian Tamil Youth Alliance) to intervene as parties or friends of the court in two joined applications.

The original applicants are challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, alleging it is ultra vires and violates Charter rights.

The court granted intervener status as parties to TRG and the Tamil Coalition, finding their contributions useful for a balanced factual record, particularly given the applicants' factual assertions about the Act's basis.

The court imposed specific limitations on the interveners' participation to avoid undue delay or prejudice.

Following the dismissal of the moving parties' motion for leave to appeal, the responding parties sought costs pursuant to a consent order.

The Divisional Court awarded the responding parties costs in the amount of $7,500, all inclusive, for the appeal and motion for leave to appeal.

The plaintiff was successful in defending a motion to stay the action brought by the defendants on the basis of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $16,533.44 plus $1,800.94 for costs submissions.

The defendants argued for no costs or a maximum of $10,023.92.

The court rejected the defendants' argument for no costs, adjusted the plaintiff's counsel's partial indemnity rate to 60% of the full indemnity rate, and awarded the plaintiff all-inclusive costs of $12,000.00.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendants argued no costs should be awarded and objected to duplicative billing.

The court found the plaintiffs were entitled to substantial indemnity costs from the date of their offer but reduced the quantum to account for unnecessary duplication, fixing costs at $23,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff commenced an action in Ontario for wrongful dismissal and unpaid wages against the corporate defendants and their director.

The defendants, based in British Columbia, brought a motion to stay the action, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, that British Columbia was the more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it had jurisdiction because the employment contract was formed in Ontario, where the plaintiff worked exclusively.

The court further held that the defendants failed to demonstrate that British Columbia was a clearly more appropriate forum, noting that the plaintiff's choice of forum was fair and efficient.

The plaintiffs (purchasers) and defendants (vendors) entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a condominium.

Prior to closing, the vendor's agent caused extensive water damage to the property while replacing plumbing.

The purchasers refused to close without a substantial holdback to assess and repair the unknown extent of the damage, which the vendor rejected.

Both parties brought motions for summary judgment.

The court found that the water damage was substantial, the purchasers acted reasonably and in good faith, and the vendor failed to act in good faith by initially refusing an independent inspection.

The purchasers' cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, the agreement was validly terminated, the deposit was ordered returned, and damages for additional living expenses were awarded.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court judge dated March 25, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding receiver in the fixed amount of $5,000.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to stay the plaintiffs' action on the basis of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs totaling over $260,000.

The court found the requested amounts excessive given the length and complexity of the hearing, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay $50,000 to Israel and $36,000 to CTCC, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiffs, Argentine citizens, brought an action in Ontario against the State of Israel and its Canadian fiscal agent, seeking to recover proceeds from two bonds issued by Israel in the name of their great-uncle's estate.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the proceeding, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, that Israel was the more appropriate forum.

The court granted the motion, finding that the presumptive connecting factors to Ontario were weak and rebutted, as the core of the dispute involved contracts formed and torts allegedly committed outside of Ontario.

Furthermore, the court held that even if it had jurisdiction, it would decline to exercise it because Israel was clearly the more appropriate forum based on the location of witnesses, applicable law, and enforcement considerations.

The applicant sought location approval for a proposed dam and hydroelectric facility under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry issued a Notice of Intention to Refuse Location Approval, citing uncertainty regarding areas to be flooded and insufficient hydrological data.

The applicant requested an inquiry.

The Inquiry Officers found that the applicant's hydraulic modelling was reliable and sufficient to predict that water level changes would remain within natural fluctuations, resulting in negligible biological impacts.

The Inquiry Officers also found the applicant's Aboriginal consultation efforts to be adequate.

Concluding that the intended refusal was not fair, sound, or reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes of the Act, the Inquiry Officers recommended that the Minister approve the location of the proposed dam subject to conditions.

The applicant proposed a dam and hydroelectric facility, which the Minister intended to refuse.

The applicant requested an inquiry under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.

The Ontario Waterpower Association (OWA) sought to be added as a party to the inquiry, arguing the decision would set a precedent for the waterpower industry.

The Inquiry Officers denied the request, finding that a concern about potential precedential effect is insufficient to establish a 'direct interest' as required by the Act.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiff's action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the defendant sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued for no costs or a reduced amount.

The court found no reason to depart from the presumptive entitlement to full indemnity costs under s. 137.1(7).

Costs were fixed at $20,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action for civil conspiracy, defamation, and intentional infliction of mental distress against the defendants for distributing alleged hate speech pamphlets at a Pride Parade.

The lead defendant moved to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions and as an abuse of process, and alternatively to strike the claim.

The plaintiffs moved for a Norwich Order to identify the anonymous co-defendants.

The court held that the defendant was estopped from denying the pamphlets were hate speech based on a prior Supreme Court decision, and thus the anti-SLAPP motion failed.

However, the court struck the class action because the torts pleaded are individual in nature and cannot be brought on behalf of a collective group.

The court granted leave to amend the claim to an opt-in joinder action and granted the Norwich Order on terms.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing a Consulting Agreement and a Letter of Credit Agreement, and the dismissal of their motion to consolidate two related actions.

The appellants argued the agreements were unenforceable as illegal loans under the Criminal Code and were procured in breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the case was document-driven, appropriate for summary judgment, the agreements were not loans, and no fiduciary duty existed.