Robert S. Harrison

Following a trial regarding reciprocal easements and commercial redevelopment, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs achieved divided success, obtaining some but not all of the declaratory relief sought and failing to obtain a permanent injunction.

The court declined to make a distributive costs order, instead reducing the plaintiffs' partial indemnity costs by 50% to reflect their divided success and over-staffing, awarding them $638,804.86 against the Market Village defendants.

The Kennedy defendants were awarded $70,000 in partial indemnity costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs and defendants own contiguous commercial retail centres and share reciprocal easements for access and parking.

The defendants proposed a major redevelopment that would expand their building footprint onto lands subject to the plaintiffs' easement, eliminating hundreds of surface parking spaces.

The plaintiffs sought declarations and an injunction to prevent the development.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the proposed development would substantially interfere with the plaintiffs' easement rights and overburden the remaining shared parking.

The court granted specific declarations confirming the breach of the easements but declined to issue a permanent injunction, finding it unnecessary given existing structural safeguards.

Following a successful application compelling production of documents, the applicant sought costs including substantial indemnity costs from the date of a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court held that the offer contained an element of compromise and that the judgment obtained was more favourable than the offer, justifying substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court rejected arguments that senior counsel duplication and hourly rates were unreasonable, noting that outdated cost grid guidelines were unrealistic for complex commercial litigation.

Applying a methodology of awarding 60% of actual time for partial indemnity costs and 90% for substantial indemnity costs after the offer, the court found the claimed costs fair and reasonable.

Costs of $100,000 were ordered payable solely by the general partner respondent and not reimbursable by the limited partnership.

The applicant, a limited partner, brought an application for the production of financial records and forecasts from the respondent limited partnership.

The respondents refused, relying on a confidentiality clause in the limited partnership agreement.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that while partners can contract out of the right to information provisions in the Limited Partnerships Act, the specific confidentiality clause did not apply to the broader financial documents sought.

The court also held that a limited partner is not required to provide a reason for seeking information to which they are statutorily entitled.

The plaintiffs, indigenous Mayan Q'eqchi' from Guatemala, sued a Canadian mining company and its subsidiaries for human rights abuses allegedly committed by security personnel at a mining project in Guatemala.

The defendants brought motions to strike the claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, arguing that a parent company does not owe a duty of care for the actions of its foreign subsidiary.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the negligence claims would fail, as the plaintiffs pleaded facts that could establish a novel duty of care.

The court also dismissed a motion to strike one of the actions as statute-barred, finding that the claim was based on sexual assault and fell within the exception in section 10 of the Limitations Act.

A human rights organization sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in three related civil actions alleging human rights abuses in Guatemala by subsidiaries of Canadian mining companies.

The proposed intervention related to pending motions by the defendants to dismiss the claims for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The proposed intervenor argued it could assist the court by providing expertise on international human rights law, transnational corporate responsibility, and the potential scope of a duty of care owed by Canadian parent corporations for overseas conduct of subsidiaries.

The court held that the organization could provide a useful legal perspective on international standards and policy considerations without interfering with the evidentiary record.

Leave to intervene was granted with limits on written and oral submissions.

The appellants sued the respondent for breach of confidence, alleging the respondent misused ticket booking data provided to it for billing and settlement purposes to create a competing data product.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding that the information was not communicated in confidence, largely due to the absence of a confidentiality clause in favour of the appellants in the relevant agreements.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in his assessment of the factual matrix and the reasonable person standard.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction.

The plaintiff claimed $45,391.40 inclusive of GST and disbursements, while the defendants argued $25,000 was fair and reasonable.

The court noted that much of the work had already been prepared for the original injunction motion.

Applying Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs at $28,627.40, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

In a CCAA proceeding, the appellant sought to enforce a Memorandum of Agreement to purchase the debtor's assets after missing a deadline.

The motion judge found the agreement had expired.

The respondents moved to quash the appeal on the basis that leave was required under s. 13 of the CCAA.

The Court of Appeal held that leave was required because the order was made under the CCAA.

The Court dismissed the appellant's cross-motion for leave to appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's findings on expiration and estoppel, and concluding the proposed appeal lacked significance to the practice.

Following an appeal in which the respondents were largely successful, the respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis and a premium.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellants' attacks on the trial judge's fact-finding process did not warrant substantial indemnity costs, nor did the financial risk run by appellate counsel warrant a premium.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis, reduced by 5 percent to reflect the appellants' minor success on appeal.

In a complex family business dispute, the respondents moved to lift the automatic stay of substantial money judgments pending appeal, or alternatively for interim costs or security for costs.

The appellants brought a cross-motion to stay certain mandatory tracing orders pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both motions.

The court found the appeals were not devoid of merit and the respondents failed to establish sufficient hardship or risk of asset dissipation to justify lifting the stay.

The court also found the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm to justify staying the mandatory tracing orders.

Ardagh PLC, an unsuccessful bidder in a court-approved sale process under the CCAA, sought leave to appeal the order approving the sale of Consumers Packaging Inc.'s assets to Owens-Illinois, Inc. The Court of Appeal refused leave, noting that leave to appeal in CCAA proceedings should be granted sparingly and not where it would prejudice the restructuring.

The court also noted that an unsuccessful bidder generally lacks standing to challenge a sale approval order.