Robert G. Ackerman

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondent sought costs of $35,000 on a partial indemnity basis, which included costs thrown away for two prior adjournments.

The appellant argued the amount was excessive and suggested an award between $18,000 and $22,000.

The Divisional Court found the claimed costs thrown away to be excessive but agreed the respondent was entitled to costs for the adjournments.

The court fixed costs at $30,000 all-inclusive, to be set-off against the sum owed by the respondent to the appellant under an Ontario Municipal Board award.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision determining compensation for the City of Toronto's expropriation of subsurface easements for existing pipelines.

The appellant argued the Board erred by denying damages for business losses caused by delay and by failing to award interest and costs.

The appellant also sought to adduce fresh evidence to increase its claim for injurious affection.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that there was no causal nexus between the expropriation and the business losses was reasonable.

The Court also refused to admit the fresh evidence, as it could have been adduced earlier and would not have affected the result.

At the outset of the appeal, the appellant sought leave to file an Amended Notice of Appeal and adduce fresh evidence.

The court refused leave to add the first proposed ground of appeal regarding an increase in damages for injurious affection, and consequently refused the fresh evidence in support of it.

The court reserved its decision on the second proposed ground and its associated fresh evidence until after hearing argument on the appeal itself, as it was inextricably interwoven with an existing ground of appeal.

The solicitor of record for the appellant brought a motion to be removed due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The court granted the motion, finding the breakdown apparent.

Given the complexity of the matter, the court adjourned the scheduled appeal sine die to allow the appellant 40 days to obtain new counsel.

The issue of wasted costs for the adjournment was left to the panel ultimately hearing the appeal.

The Minister of Transportation appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Ontario Municipal Board compensation award for expropriated land.

The dispute centered on the 'before and after' valuation method, specifically whether development and delay costs were double-counted when calculating the 'after' value of the remaining parcel.

The Court of Appeal found that deducting the full development costs while also factoring in the betterment of the remaining lands amounted to double-counting.

The appeal was allowed, and the compensation payable to the respondent was reduced from $1,110,344 to $623,121.

The Minister of Transportation appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondent $1,110,348 for the expropriation of a portion of her land.

The Minister argued the Board erred by deducting development and delay costs from the 'after value' of the remaining land, contending the compensation should be lower.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board correctly applied the 'before and after' valuation method and properly interpreted the Expropriations Act regarding market value and injurious affection.

The appellant advanced a commercial loan to the respondent with an effective annual interest rate exceeding 90 percent, violating the criminal interest rate provisions of the Criminal Code.

The respondent sought a declaration that the agreement was illegal.

The application judge applied 'notional severance' to reduce the interest rate to the legal maximum of 60 percent.

The Court of Appeal reversed this, applying the traditional 'blue-pencil' test to strike out the interest provision entirely.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that notional severance is available as a remedy for statutory illegality under s. 347 and was appropriate in this case given the commercial context and the parties' intentions.

The appellants challenged a judgment requiring payment for emergency spill cleanup following a gasoline tanker rollover.

The court held that new evidence showing there was no agreement on rates undermined the partial summary judgment premised on payment at the respondent's usual rates.

The court further held that the trial judge failed to address whether mark-ups on subcontracted work were recoverable at usual rates or were otherwise fair and reasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment and trial judgment were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.