ODC 2013

In a costs decision following an appeal, the plaintiff sought costs against the defendants, and the individual defendant sought costs having successfully appealed the personal judgment against him.

The court awarded the plaintiff its trial disbursements and appeal costs against the corporate defendant.

However, the court denied the individual defendant his costs, despite his success on appeal, because he was the primary actor who caused the plaintiff's loss and obfuscated the corporate relationships.

The defendant Crown sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action alleged that the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) was negligent and breached a fiduciary duty by reinstating a defaulting payor's passport, allowing him to leave the country and evade support arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the motion judge's conclusion that whether FRO owed a duty of care or a fiduciary duty to the support recipients were genuine issues requiring a trial.