Ross Donald George William Rollo

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of two appeals by the appellant, African Lion Safari & Game Farm Ltd. The appellant was ordered to pay costs of $100,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements to the Cowles and Balac respondents, to be allocated between them.

An additional $20,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements was awarded to Jennifer Anne Cowles for her separate representation.

In this personal injury appeal arising from a tiger attack at a drive-through safari zoo, the appellant challenged liability findings, the striking of its jury notice, the exclusion of surveillance evidence, and the treatment of contributory negligence in strict liability.

The majority held that the trial judge applied the correct jury-discharge test and was entitled to conclude that the legal, medical, actuarial, and evidentiary complexities made a judge-alone trial preferable.

Although the majority agreed that the investigator's evidence was wrongly excluded because any breach of professional conduct rules was a matter for the Law Society and not admissibility, the error was harmless because the appellant failed to show any possible effect on the result.

The majority also held it was unnecessary to decide the contributory negligence issue because the trial judge found the plaintiffs had not deliberately lowered the windows, and found no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings.

The appeal was dismissed, with a partial dissent that would have ordered a new trial on liability.

The appellant passenger was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and was found 35 per cent contributorily negligent by a jury for failing to wear an available shoulder harness, despite wearing a lap belt.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury's assessment was unreasonable, as contributory negligence solely for failing to wear a seatbelt should not exceed 25 per cent.

The court substituted an assessment of 5 per cent contributory negligence, noting the appellant complied with the statutory requirement to wear a lap belt and the shoulder harness was a non-retracting type that was commonly worn improperly.

The appellant appealed a series of orders, including a receiving order, made in bankruptcy proceedings against him.

He sought to adduce fresh evidence demonstrating that the bankruptcy proceedings were initiated by the petitioning creditors for an improper purpose, specifically to eliminate him as an adversary in ongoing civil litigation.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, which revealed that the appellant was solvent, that there were no amounts owing on a mortgage on his home, and that the bankruptcy was orchestrated for an improper purpose.

The appeal was allowed and all bankruptcy orders, including the receiving order, were set aside.

In an addendum on costs following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reviewed additional written submissions from the parties regarding the costs of the trial.

The Court was not persuaded to alter the trial judge's original disposition of costs.

The plaintiff, a real estate agent, was wrongfully dismissed and subsequently defamed by his former employer on two separate occasions.

The trial judge awarded damages for defamation but failed to distinguish between the first slander, which was statute-barred, and the second actionable slander.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the global damages award and substituting an award of $10,000 for the actionable slander.

The Court upheld the trial judge's discretionary costs order, which denied costs to a successful co-defendant and required the unsuccessful defendant to pay the plaintiff's entire costs, due to the defendants' failure to make timely documentary disclosure.

The plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding reimbursement of advertising fund contributions was dismissed.

The appellant mortgage portfolio manager appealed a trial judgment that dismissed its claim for investment losses allegedly caused by a land registry error.

The registry had failed to register a second mortgage against the correct property, which the appellant claimed affected its decision to advance loan money.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant suffered no loss as a result of the registration error and that the appellant got what it bargained for.

Following the release of reasons for judgment, the court received written submissions on costs of the cross-appeal.

On consent of the appellant in the cross-appeal, the court awarded costs of the cross-appeal to the respondents in the cross-appeal on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $2,000 each.

The plaintiffs, Ontario residents, were injured in a motor vehicle accident in New York State involving a vehicle driven by a New York resident.

The plaintiffs sued in Ontario.

The defendant moved to determine the applicable law.

The Court of Appeal held that the substantive law of New York (lex loci delicti) applies, while the procedural law of Ontario (lex fori) applies.

The Court determined that costs and the cap on non-pecuniary damages are procedural matters governed by Ontario law, whereas pre-judgment interest is a substantive right governed by New York law.