Peter Joseph Cavanagh

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of applications by Belokon, Entes, Sistem, and Stans (the "Applicants") to recognize and enforce arbitral awards against the Kyrgyz Republic (the "Republic"), and to declare an exigible ownership interest of the Republic in Centerra Gold Inc. shares held by Kyrgyzaltyn JSC.

The Republic and Kyrgyzaltyn (the "Respondents") sought costs.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting claims for full or substantial indemnity.

It also determined that costs should be payable on a several, not joint and several, basis due to the unrelated nature of the Applicants and the court-directed common issue hearing.

The court limited the costs award to the common issue hearing, excluding prior jurisdiction motions or general recognition application costs, and considered previous compensation for materials.

The applicants sought a declaration that the Kyrgyz Republic held an exigible ownership interest in shares of Centerra Gold Inc. registered in the name of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kyrgyzaltyn JSC, to enforce arbitral awards.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the Agreement on New Terms (ANT) unambiguously established Kyrgyzaltyn JSC as the beneficial owner of the shares, not the Republic.

The court rejected arguments based on contract interpretation under New York law and trust principles under Canadian law, emphasizing the separate legal personality of the subsidiary and the lack of evidence for an ownership interest or trust.

An insolvent developer applied for interpretation of a subdivision agreement and standby letter of credit securing municipal works in a development project.

The developer argued that the municipality could use proceeds from the letter of credit to pay unsecured trade creditors who had supplied goods and services before the developer’s insolvency.

The court held that the agreement limited the municipality’s entitlement to prospective costs associated with completion or rectification of municipal works and did not authorize retroactive payment to unsecured creditors.

The court rejected reliance on the autonomy doctrine governing letters of credit, noting that permitting such retroactive payments would be fraudulent where the bank had not secured those obligations.

The application for the requested interpretation was dismissed.

In proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the court addressed scheduling issues for a complex multi‑party trial involving the allocation of assets among creditor groups.

The parties proposed deferring the trial from April 1, 2014 to April 28, 2014, but disagreement remained regarding whether the later date would be feasible.

The court concluded that maintaining the earlier date risked a chaotic trial and that a rolling start date would create further uncertainty.

To ensure certainty and orderly preparation, the court rescheduled the trial to begin May 12, 2014 for 20 days and set case management and trial management conferences.

The court also required all parties to provide comprehensive fee and disbursement summaries to monitor escalating litigation costs.

Members of a church brought an application seeking an interlocutory injunction preventing a congregational meeting to vote on the dismissal of the senior pastor and requesting a mandatory order requiring the church to admit additional individuals to membership.

The dispute arose after church elders decided to limit consideration of new membership applications to those submitted before a specified date while simultaneously proposing to add twelve members prior to the vote.

The court held that although civil courts should be cautious when intervening in the internal affairs of religious organizations, intervention is appropriate where the process is unfair or contrary to principles of natural justice.

The court found the elders’ process unfair because it materially altered the membership composition while excluding other similarly situated applicants.

An injunction preventing the meeting was granted and certain additional individuals were permitted to submit their names for membership consideration.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to recover outstanding debts arising from credit facilities and credit card obligations guaranteed by several corporate and personal guarantors.

The defendants argued that the reasonableness of the bank’s legal fees, the discharge of a third mortgage security, and other accounting issues created genuine issues requiring trial.

The court held that the only unresolved issue concerned the reasonableness of legal fees, which would be determined through an assessment under the Solicitors Act.

Excluding those disputed legal fees, the court found no genuine issue requiring trial regarding the remaining indebtedness and rejected the defence that discharge of a mortgage extinguished the underlying debt.

Summary judgment was granted for the minimum outstanding principal, the counterclaim was dismissed, and the remaining legal fees were ordered to be determined by assessment.