P. Jock C. Climie

Following an appeal where the appellant achieved partial success against multiple respondents, the Court of Appeal determined the appropriate costs awards.

Recognizing the divided success at both the motions and appellate levels, the court ordered the appellant to pay costs for the motions below, while ordering certain respondents to pay costs for the appeal.

The court accounted for the multiplicity of counsel and the novelty of the appellant's arguments in fixing the amounts.

The appellant, former Commissioner of the Canadian Football League, appealed an order striking out his statement of claim against the CFL, its member clubs, and various individuals.

The claim alleged breach of confidence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, defamation, injurious falsehood, and interference with contractual relations arising from his hiring and subsequent dismissal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that while the statement of claim was prolix and contained evidence rather than material facts, certain causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and defamation were viable.

The Court struck the entire pleading but granted the appellant leave to deliver a fresh amended statement of claim for the surviving causes of action.

The appellant, former Commissioner of the Canadian Football League, sued the League's member clubs and various individuals for almost $19 million following his dismissal.

The defendants successfully moved to strike out most of the statement of claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the claims for breach of confidence, injurious falsehood, and intentional interference with contractual relations.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, permitting certain claims for negligent misrepresentation and defamation to proceed against specific defendants, subject to the delivery of a fresh amended statement of claim to cure pleading deficiencies.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding he breached his duty of confidentiality to his former employer by exploiting information related to a government contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the information regarding the contract's renewal and the client's needs was not confidential, as it was widely known and solicited by the government.

Furthermore, the appellant's knowledge of his own skills and qualifications, which he provided to a competing bidder, was his own information and not the property of the respondent.

The action was dismissed.