Scott McLean

The court considered a motion by Mr. Simms to oppose the confirmation of a certificate of an assessment officer, effectively appealing the assessment of costs.

The motion was brought more than two years after service of the certificate, well outside the 15-day period set by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the delay was not adequately explained and that the merits of the appeal were insufficient to justify an extension of time.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to a co-tenancy agreement to resolve a dispute over the conveyance of residential lots.

The respondent opposed, arguing that the agreement's 'Applicable Law' clause, which attorned to the exclusive jurisdiction of Ontario courts, invalidated the arbitration clause.

The court held that the contract must be read as a whole, finding that the specific arbitration clause qualified the general applicable law clause.

The court appointed an arbitrator to determine the dispute.

Kaymar Rehabilitation Inc. appealed the dismissal of its action against Champlain Community Care Access Centre regarding a 2003 request for proposals for therapy services.

Kaymar challenged the trial judge's interpretation of the RFP documents, arguing that Champlain improperly allowed bidders without therapy services experience to qualify by accepting "professional services" as equivalent experience.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation, finding that the RFP documents clearly permitted such equivalents and that Kaymar had accepted these terms by bidding.

The court also addressed the costs award, reducing it from $1,864,000 to $1,675,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

This costs endorsement followed a twelve-year litigation where the plaintiff's case, alleging an unfair bidding process, was dismissed in its entirety.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of over $2.8 million, citing the plaintiff's unfounded allegations of dishonesty and collusion and persistence despite prior judicial warnings.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs, disputing the quantum and the basis for substantial indemnity.

The court awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs from the date of its offer to settle in May 2014, finding the plaintiff's continued litigation of weak claims warranted such an award.

The final costs awarded to the defendant were $1,864,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, after reductions for travel and excessive e-discovery costs.

The plaintiff, an incumbent service provider, sued the defendant community care access centre for damages arising from a 2003 Request for Proposals (RFP) process.

The plaintiff alleged the procurement process was unfair, claiming the defendant was motivated by a desire to avoid severance costs, used undisclosed criteria, permitted a conflict of interest, unfairly customized the RFP, accepted a non-compliant bid, and conducted a flawed evaluation.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that while there were minor procedural irregularities, the defendant did not breach its duty of fairness.

The court concluded the defendant had no financial motive to disfavour the plaintiff, the evaluation criteria were transparent, and the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the evaluation process.

The applicant sought declarations regarding the interpretation of a limited partnership agreement governing a large residential land development project.

The dispute concerned whether partnership decisions required consensus between the two limited partners or could be determined by weighted voting based on ownership interests, and whether a subsequent agreement requiring equal allocation of residential building lots was enforceable.

The court held that the partnership agreement clearly permitted ordinary resolutions to be decided by a majority of votes weighted by ownership shares, giving the majority partner decision‑making authority.

However, the court also found that the later agreement requiring a 50‑50 division of residential building lots between the partners was valid and binding.

The court concluded that both agreements could operate together: decision‑making authority followed the ownership weighting while lot allocation remained equal under the later agreement.