Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

This costs endorsement followed the Court of Appeal's reasons dated November 1, 2024, where parties were invited to make submissions regarding costs if they could not agree.

After reviewing the submissions, the Court ordered the respondent, Matthew Preston, to pay the appellant, Cervus Equipment Corporation, all-inclusive costs of $30,000 for the motion.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his oppression action by way of summary judgment.

The action arose from a condominium fire, subsequent lien for remediation costs, and eventual power of sale of his unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the motion judge's decisions regarding amendments to the claim, expert evidence, the suitability of summary judgment, or apprehension of bias.

The moving parties, Shania and Justine Lavallee, sought an order for security for costs against the responding party, Solit Isak, for their successful defamation action and estimated appeal costs.

Isak, the appellant, conceded impecuniosity but argued her appeal was meritorious.

The Court of Appeal found good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious due to its lack of merit and Isak's dilatory conduct.

Alternatively, the court found "other good reason" to order security, balancing the parties' interests.

The motion was granted, ordering Isak to post $15,000 in security for costs, staying the appeal until payment, and awarding costs of the motion to the Lavallees.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellants were successful.

The Court of Appeal invited written submissions regarding the costs of the summary judgment motion below.

The appellants submitted their costs, while the respondent declined to provide any.

The court awarded the appellants their costs in responding to the motion for summary judgment, fixed at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant sought a motion to review a decision of the motion judge.

The motion judge had heard both the respondent's motion to stay proceedings and the appellant's motion for an extension of time simultaneously.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge's discretionary order, as the motion judge had reasonably connected his decision on the respondent's motion to his disposition of the appellant's motion.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,500.00 all-inclusive.

The respondent sued the appellant for defamation arising from a brief sexual relationship.

The appellant counterclaimed for sexual battery and intentional infliction of mental distress.

The motion judge struck the claim in battery, and the appellant appealed.

The appellant, representing herself, repeatedly sought adjournments based on alleged emotional difficulties and medical appointments but failed to provide supporting evidence or appear at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for an adjournment and the appeal, noting the appeal had little chance of success.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Registrar for delay.

A single judge of the Court of Appeal granted an extension of time, but the applicant failed to perfect the appeal, resulting in a second dismissal.

The applicant then brought a motion for a further extension of time, which was dismissed by another single judge due to delay and lack of discernable merit.

On a motion to review that decision, a panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no overriding error or application of a wrong principle in the single judge's discretionary decision.

This was a costs endorsement following an appeal.

On consent, the parties agreed that the costs of the appeal should be fixed at $15,000 to the respondent to the appeal, inclusive of fees, disbursements and applicable taxes.

The Court of Appeal ordered costs in that amount.

The appellants appealed a Divisional Court order that set aside the conditional certification of their proposed class action against Canada regarding the placement of Aboriginal children in non-Aboriginal foster care.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the case management judge erred by conditionally certifying the action when the statement of claim did not disclose a viable cause of action.

The Court also agreed that the certification motion should be heard by a different judge to avoid the original judge sitting in review of his own decision.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, quashing the Divisional Court's costs award because it failed to consider the public interest and novel legal issues raised by the case.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside a default judgment sounding in fraud and negligence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's application of the test for setting aside a default judgment.

Although the first two branches of the test may have been satisfied, the appellant failed to establish any arguable defence on the merits to either the fraud or negligence claims.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that dismissed the majority of its contractual claims against the respondent regarding a magazine publishing agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed to consider material evidence regarding the factual matrix of the contract, ignored evidence of the respondent's lack of good faith in negotiating a renewal, and failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the credibility of the appellant's key witness.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that found no wrongdoing or improper conduct by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly applied the relevant legal test and that the factual findings did not support the application of s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant sued the Attorney General of Canada for improperly rejecting his proposal submitted in response to a Request for Proposal for Informatics Professional Services.

The proposal was rejected because the appellant's proposed personnel lacked the required security clearance.

The motions judge granted partial summary judgment to the respondent, finding no triable issue as the mandatory security requirements were not met.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no ambiguity in the RFP documents and no basis to interfere.

The parties, equal shareholders in a land development company, reached a deadlock.

The trial judge ordered the company wound up and gave the appellant the first right to buy the respondent's shares at fair market value.

After the parties failed to agree on a price, the trial judge fixed the share value and ordered a descending auction if the rights of refusal were not exercised.

The Divisional Court set aside this order and directed a public auction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by abandoning the valuation mechanism without notice, and the Divisional Court erred by removing the appellant's right of first refusal.

The matter was remitted to the trial judge.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding against Inco Limited for environmental contamination in Port Colborne, alleging that nickel oxide emissions caused a decline in property values following a 2000 Ministry of the Environment announcement.

The motion judge and Divisional Court refused certification, finding the class arbitrary and individual issues overwhelming.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and certified the action, holding that the narrowed claim focusing solely on property devaluation met all certification requirements under the Class Proceedings Act, including identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and suitable representative plaintiff.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing a United States judgment against them for costs incurred in removing hazardous substances from a copper mine.

The appellants argued the summary judgment should not have been granted due to a denial of natural justice and public policy concerns.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusions that the appellants had adequate notice and opportunity to defend the US proceeding but chose to walk away.

The appellant estate appealed a trial judgment finding that the owner of a motor vehicle was not vicariously liable for a fatal accident.

The plaintiff, who had the owner's consent to possess the vehicle, fell asleep in the passenger seat.

The deceased driver, who did not have a license or the owner's consent, took control of the vehicle and crashed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the plaintiff was not in possession of the vehicle at the time of the accident, as the driver had taken possession without consent.

The appeal was dismissed.

On a chambers motion pending appeal, the appellant law firm sought to preserve funds representing part of a fire-loss damages award and certain personal property claimed as security for unpaid accounts.

The court held that the portion of the fire judgment standing in the place of the destroyed goods constituted a specific fund under Rule 45.02, including prejudgment interest, and that the appeal had sufficient apparent merit because the limitation and laches issues were arguable and non-frivolous.

The balance of convenience favoured continued preservation because there was no assurance the funds would remain available if released and no demonstrated need for immediate release to the respondents.

Orders preserving both the fund and the identified property pending appeal were granted.

The appellant challenged a jury verdict in a personal injury action on the basis that the trial was unfair, relying on late service of expert reports, the applicability of a building code regulation, counsel's addresses, a Brown v. Dunn ruling, the jury charge, and cumulative unfairness.

The court held that no prejudice was shown from the timing of the reports, there was ample evidence of dangerous construction of the ramp regardless of the regulation's applicability, and the remaining complaints disclosed no reversible error.

The court also upheld the trial judge's treatment of gross-up.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants moved to stay a post-trial order directing that money paid into court by the plaintiff as security for costs be paid out to the respondent's solicitors in trust.

The court held that a successful plaintiff at trial is entitled to the return of money posted as security for costs notwithstanding an appeal and rejected the attempt to preserve the security indirectly pending appeal.

The motion to stay was dismissed with costs.

The respondent's cross-motion to strike a ground in the supplementary notice of appeal was dismissed as moot without costs.