Per curiam

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order granting the plaintiff leave to amend her Statement of Claim based on information provided in a Demand for Particulars.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that statements made in judicial proceedings, including pleadings and particulars, are protected by absolute privilege, even if made falsely and maliciously.

The court also found that the plaintiff's claim for abuse of process lacked the essential element of an overt act distinct from the proceedings themselves.

The order granting leave to amend was set aside and the motion was dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion and fixed costs in the amount of $750, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion and fixed costs at $1,000.

The moving party, CAFO Inc., sought leave to appeal in the Stelco Inc. proceedings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to appeal with respect to the questions in paragraphs 23-28 of the moving party's factum, but denied leave for question 29.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The mother brought a motion for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion for leave without costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent, Air Canada, against the appellant, Global Payments Canada Inc., on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $46,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The applicant sought leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal and dismissed the application, awarding costs to the respondent fixed at $1,000.

Following an appeal involving a long-term municipal employee who lost his employment due to amalgamation, the Court of Appeal issued a brief endorsement fixing the costs of the appeal and the proceedings below at $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's decision granting a bankruptcy petition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that acts of bankruptcy were established.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that the trial judge made improper interventions during the proceedings, noting the interventions were appropriate to assist the proper conduct of the trial.

The appellant husband appealed a matrimonial judgment regarding spousal support, division of chattels, division of net family property, and life insurance for the child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on support, net family property, and life insurance.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part regarding the division of chattels, noting the trial judge erred in ordering the sale of chattels belonging to a third party, and ordered a reference to determine ownership if the parties could not agree.

Following release of the appeal reasons, the respondent requested an opportunity to make further submissions on trial costs and advised that the trial judge had reduced the general damages award to account for additional workers' compensation benefits.

The court considered the further submissions from both sides and remained satisfied that the trial judge's costs order should stand.

The corrected general damages amount was noted.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed on consent.

The court made no costs order.

The endorsement contains no substantive analysis.