Peter M. Jacobsen

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend the date by which their defamation action must be set down for trial, after failing to meet a consent timetable order due to an overlooked mandatory mediation requirement.

The court treated the motion similarly to one setting aside a registrar's dismissal order and applied the Reid factors.

Finding that the delay was adequately explained, the failure to set down was inadvertent, the motion was brought promptly, and the defendants suffered no actual prejudice, the Master granted the extension.

No costs were awarded as the plaintiffs required an indulgence from the court.

After dismissing an application for a Norwich order compelling a newspaper to reveal confidential sources related to a business news story, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The unsuccessful applicant argued that no costs should be awarded because the proceeding raised novel and public interest issues linked to a proposed securities class action.

The court held that although the litigation had some public interest elements, it was fundamentally a private claim seeking recovery of trading losses.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and considering the access to justice concerns noted by the Court of Appeal in class action jurisprudence, the court reduced the respondents’ claimed costs but fixed a substantial award.

Costs were ordered against the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought a Norwich order compelling a journalist and newspaper to disclose the identities of confidential sources quoted in an article concerning the BCE leveraged buy-out negotiations.

The applicant alleged the sources’ statements were misleading or unlawful under the Securities Act and caused trading losses, and intended to pursue a proposed securities class action against them.

The court applied the Norwich test together with the Wigmore framework for journalist‑source privilege.

It found that any alleged breach of securities law was speculative and minimal, and that the public interest in protecting confidential journalistic sources outweighed the limited interest in disclosure for a civil claim.

The journalist‑source privilege was therefore upheld and disclosure refused.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal on liability and partial success on the costs appeal, the respondents sought costs of the appeal totaling $675,880.87.

The appellant argued for no costs or a significantly reduced amount due to divided success and duplication of counsel by the amalgamated municipal respondents.

The Court of Appeal awarded the respondents one set of costs, fixed at $125,000, reflecting the straightforward nature of the legal issues, the duplication of argument, and the appellant's partial success on the costs appeal.

The appellant, operator of a retirement home, appealed the dismissal of its action for misfeasance in public office against the City of Hamilton and the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, arising from an order to comply issued in 1994.

The appellant also appealed the trial judge's costs award of over $4 million.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the misfeasance claim, finding the public officials acted lawfully and in good faith to protect vulnerable residents.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the award to a partial indemnity scale and adjusting for duplication of counsel after the City and Region amalgamated.

The parties settled the matter on consent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal without costs.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of $18,939.18 from the media coalition regarding its motion to intervene on the appeal.

The media coalition had been granted leave to intervene on conditions, including paying costs incurred due to late intervention, but subsequently elected not to participate in the appeal to avoid costs exposure.

The Court of Appeal held that because the intervener did not participate, there was no relevant costs order on the appeal to trigger the payment of full motion costs.

However, the court awarded the respondents $3,500 for costs fairly attributable to the late intervention.

The appellant, Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc., was successful on appeal and sought partial indemnity costs for both the initial motion and the appeal from the respondents, Conrad M. Black and Barbara Amiel-Black.

The respondents argued that intervenors generally do not receive costs and that the amounts claimed were excessive.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellant $18,000 in partial indemnity costs for the appeal, finding the claimed amount excessive given the appellant's familiarity with the issues.

The court declined to award costs for the initial motion, as the motion judge made no costs order and the appellant had not sought such costs in its notice of appeal.

The appellant newspaper sought intervenor status to challenge sealing and protective orders made in respect of material filed on a motion for a Mareva injunction against the respondents.

The motion judge dismissed the newspaper's motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in refusing to grant the newspaper intervenor status, failing to give sufficient weight to the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.

The Court set aside the order, granted the newspaper intervenor status for the limited purpose of challenging the protective order, and remitted the balance of the motion to the Superior Court for a new hearing.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined the quantum of costs following written submissions.

The court noted little significant difference between the amounts submitted by the parties but preferred the appellant's response, fixing costs at $9,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Information and Privacy Commissioner's finding that a requested record did not contain 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued the Divisional Court erred by requiring 'detailed and convincing evidence' to establish identifiability.

The Court of Appeal agreed that this evidentiary standard was too demanding, but dismissed the appeal, finding the Commissioner's decision was reasonable given the paucity of evidence presented by the Ministry.

The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of the top ten medical procedures billed to OHIP by the highest-billing general practitioner in Toronto.

The Ministry argued the records constituted personal information and were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's finding that the physician was not identifiable from the requested records.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The intervener, a media outlet, brought a motion seeking limited access to a sealed affidavit to determine whether to challenge the sealing order.

The Crown opposed the motion, stating the affidavit contained confidential information pertaining to an ongoing criminal investigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the risk of compromising the ongoing investigation outweighed the public's right to know, especially given that the sealing order was temporary and set to expire in three months.

The applicant coalition sought judicial review of a coroner's decision denying them standing at an inquest into the death of a psychiatric patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the coroner made no serious error in principle in applying the tests for direct interest and public interest standing.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that they were denied procedural fairness by not receiving the coroner's full brief prior to the standing hearing.