Patrick Simon

Following a successful motion by the respondents declining to confirm an Assessment Officer's decision, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicants argued costs should be in the cause as the matter was returned to a judge for determination.

The court rejected this argument, finding the respondents were presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party.

The court found the respondents' claimed costs of $30,749.59 excessive due to duplication of work by multiple timekeepers, and fixed costs at $15,000 all-inclusive.

The respondents brought a motion opposing the confirmation of an Assessment Officer's decision that reduced their legal accounts from $221,336.66 to $35,000.

The court found that the Assessment Officer failed to provide sufficient reasons for the drastic reduction, as she did not meaningfully analyze the Cohen factors or explain how she arrived at the reduced amount.

The court declined to confirm the assessment and directed that the matter be returned to the judge hearing the application.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the statement of defence filed by the defendant's brother.

The brother, who is not a lawyer, attempted to defend the action using a power of attorney for property, as the defendant resided in the UK and allegedly lacked mental capacity.

The court struck the statement of defence, holding that a power of attorney does not authorize a non-lawyer to conduct litigation on behalf of another person.

The court noted that if the defendant lacks capacity, he must be represented by a litigation guardian and a lawyer.

The applicant municipality sought an order terminating its commercial lease with the respondent cultural center, alleging the respondent breached the lease by refusing to accept a reduction in leased space.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the municipality's notice of breach failed to comply with the strict requirements of section 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act as it did not specify the alleged breach.

Furthermore, the court held that the municipality breached its duty of good faith in contractual performance by attempting to use its right to reduce the leased space to circumvent a negotiated six-month notice period for termination.

Police chiefs brought an application under s. 50 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to enforce arbitration awards ordering a police services board to pay contractual entitlements following the dissolution of a regional police service.

The respondent argued the Arbitration Act did not apply because the arbitration was conducted pursuant to the Police Services Act and that enforcement should be stayed due to a pending judicial review application.

The court held that disputes over remuneration and working conditions of a chief and deputy chief fall outside Part VIII of the Police Services Act, meaning the statutory exclusion of the Arbitration Act did not apply.

Because none of the statutory grounds in s. 50(3) for refusing enforcement were present, the court was required to enforce the awards.

Judgment was therefore granted enforcing the arbitral awards.