Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - 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 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.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment in favour of the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) on a loan and guarantee.

The motion judge found that the corporate appellant was in default to RBC, which triggered a default on the BDC loan pursuant to a subordination agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial and concluding that the motion judge did not err in admitting an affidavit attaching RBC's business records or in dismissing the appellants' cross-motion to stay the summary judgment motion.

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 Attorney General of Ontario brought applications under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for the civil forfeiture of four properties used as marijuana grow operations.

The application judge ordered the forfeiture of three properties but declined to forfeit the fourth, finding it would clearly not be in the interests of justice because the owner was innocent and only a small portion of the mortgage was paid with illicit funds.

The property owners appealed the forfeiture orders, arguing the standard of proof should be beyond a reasonable doubt and that the Crown was estopped from seeking civil forfeiture.

The Attorney General appealed the refusal to forfeit the fourth property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, affirming that civil forfeiture operates on a balance of probabilities, is independent of criminal proceedings, and that the 'interests of justice' exception functions similarly to equitable relief from forfeiture.

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 appealed an order regarding compensation in a class action.

The appeal was resolved on consent, with the appellant abandoning his claim for compensation in excess of $95,000.

Class counsel consented to a payment of $95,000 to the appellant on a quantum meruit basis, to be paid from funds set aside for class counsel and appellant compensation.

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 Minister of Health and Genpharm appealed a decision granting judicial review that quashed the extension of a cut-off date for generic drug submissions to the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary.

The application judge had found the process procedurally unfair and ordered a new cut-off date, resulting in all five competing generic drug companies having their products listed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals as moot, finding that the new Formulary had already been published, the legal landscape had changed, and Genpharm's proposed future action for damages did not justify hearing the appeal on the merits.

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.

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.