Paul M. DeMelo

The appellants challenged an order striking their contempt motion without leave to amend.

The court held the motion judge made no legal or principled error, upheld the costs framework used below, and dismissed both merits and costs-related challenges.

This ruling addresses the issue of costs following a decision granting a permanent injunction to Foxgate Developments Inc. and confirming an interlocutory injunction for The Corporation of Haldimand County.

The successful parties, Foxgate and Haldimand, sought costs from the defendant, Skyler Williams.

Williams argued that the litigation was in the public interest, warranting an exemption from costs, or that costs should be deferred or referred to an assessment officer.

The court dismissed Williams' arguments, finding that the case did not meet the high threshold for public interest litigation.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Foxgate ($60,000) and Haldimand ($13,000), to be paid forthwith by Skyler Williams, determining that his conduct did not warrant solicitor-client or full indemnity costs.

This appeal concerned the procedural fairness requirements when a court, on its own motion, strikes the pleadings of a self-represented Indigenous party for alleged contempt and abuse of process.

The motion judge had found the appellant, an alleged protest leader, in defiance of court orders, struck his pleadings, and granted a permanent injunction with significant costs.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by conflating contempt and abuse of process, failing to provide the appellant with adequate procedural safeguards, and denying him a fair opportunity to be heard, especially given his self-represented and Indigenous status.

The appeal was allowed, the orders striking pleadings and granting the permanent injunction were set aside, and the costs award was also set aside.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions for leave to intervene from three public interest organizations (1492 Windsor Law Coalition, Aboriginal Legal Services, and Canadian Civil Liberties Association) in an appeal concerning the striking of an Indigenous appellant's pleadings and a substantial costs award in an injunction proceeding related to a land dispute.

The motions judge had found the appellant in contempt of court.

The Court dismissed all motions for intervention, finding that 1492 WLC and ALS's submissions inappropriately expanded the legal issues on appeal by focusing on injunctions, and CCLA's submissions largely overlapped with the appellant's arguments.

The court concluded that the appellant could adequately address the Indigenous perspective.

No costs were awarded against the proposed interveners.

The appellants built a retaining wall on a neighbour's property without a permit from the Credit Valley Conservation Authority.

The neighbour (Lorne Park Estates Association) pleaded guilty to provincial offences related to the wall.

The appellants sought to intervene in the Association's sentencing to argue against the wall's removal, but their application was dismissed by the justice of the peace.

The Superior Court dismissed their certiorari application to quash this decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in denying intervener status, as intervention in quasi-criminal sentencing is rare and it would be unfair to allow third parties to interpose themselves against a joint submission by the Crown and accused.

The claimant sought a ruling that costs incurred in Superior Court proceedings, which were ultimately found to be without jurisdiction for assessment by a judge, should be included as part of the expropriation costs to be assessed by an assessment officer.

The respondent argued that these costs should not be awarded as the court lacked jurisdiction and the respondent was not at fault.

The court declined to make a determination on the Superior Court costs, instead referring the question of entitlement and quantum to the assessment officer conducting the expropriation costs assessment, noting that both parties shared the misapprehension of the court's jurisdiction.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim at trial, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, relying on an offer to settle for a dismissal without costs.

The court held that the offer amounted to an offer to capitulate and did not engage Rule 49.10.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $35,873.11, taking into account the modest complexity of the claim and the plaintiff's late abandonment of an intentional interference with economic relations claim.

Addendum to previously released reasons for judgment correcting an administrative error concerning the identification of counsel.

After the original decision was released, the court was advised that the names of counsel for the parties had been reversed.

The court issued an addendum to accurately reflect counsel for the plaintiff and defendant.

The addendum does not alter the substance of the earlier reasons or the disposition of the case.