Sandra Chapnik

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding costs and the calculation of interest following its judgment on an appeal and cross-appeal.

The court clarified that interest on excessive management compensation should be calculated at the lower of the presumptive rate under the Courts of Justice Act or the prevailing chartered bank prime lending rate, using a floating rate for simple interest.

Due to divided success on the appeal and cross-appeal, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

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 appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him personally liable for a pre-incorporation lease he signed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the corporation did not signify its intention to be bound by the lease within a reasonable time after coming into existence, as required by s. 21(2) of the Business Corporations Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant father appealed a decision dismissing his motion for leave to bring a motion for access to his 12-year-old son.

The motion judge had refused leave solely because the father had not paid previously ordered costs.

The Court of Appeal held that it is an error in law to bar a parent from seeking access solely on the ground of unpaid costs without considering the amount, reasons for non-payment, and ability to pay.

The Court set aside the decision, granted the father leave to bring his access motion, and ordered interim unsupervised access, noting the troubling history of ex parte non-contact orders that lacked evidentiary foundation.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike out allegations of the tort of intimidation from its statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the tort of intimidation requires pleading not only a threat and intent to injure, but also that an act was taken or forgone as a result of the threat, causing damages.

As the appellant only pleaded a threat and intent to injure, the claim was properly struck without leave to amend.

The self-represented appellant appealed from a summary judgment dismissing his claim for malicious prosecution against an assistant crown attorney.

The motion judge had found no genuine issue for trial regarding the absence of reasonable and probable grounds or malice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the motion judge's decision and noting the appellant failed to address any purported errors.