5 total
The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal a discretionary costs award, finding no error in principle.
The appellants sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision on costs, which had awarded partial indemnity costs of $450,000 to Pembina Pipeline Corp. and $500,000 to BluEarth Renewables Inc. The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's costs award was a discretionary decision entitled to deference.
The court concluded that there was no error in principle and the award was not plainly wrong, as the motion judge had properly considered factors such as the respondents' success, the complexity of the proceeding, the amounts at stake, and the conduct of the litigation.
Pricing bundled assets to discourage a right of first refusal does not constitute bad faith.
The appellants, Greta Energy Inc. and Great Grand Valley 2 Limited Partnership, appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against Pembina Pipeline Corporation and BluEarth Renewables Inc. The case involved the sale of bundled assets, some subject to Rights of First Refusal (ROFRs).
The appellants alleged that the respondents manipulated asset prices in bad faith to prevent the exercise of ROFRs, breaching duties of good faith and honest performance, inducing breach of contract, and conspiracy.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the respondents did not breach their duty of good faith, did not owe a fiduciary duty, did not conspire, and did not induce breach of contract, as their actions were commercially reasonable and not intended to "eviscerate" the ROFRs.
The appeal was dismissed.
The court awarded $950,000 in partial indemnity costs to the successful defendants, declining to award substantial indemnity costs based on zero-dollar settlement offers.
This is a costs endorsement following successful summary judgment motions by the defendants.
The court determined the scale and amount of costs payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants.
The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs based on their offers to settle, which proposed dismissal of the action without costs.
The court found that such offers, while relevant, do not automatically attract substantial indemnity costs, and awarded partial indemnity costs, considering factors like success, complexity, amounts at stake, and litigation conduct.
Summary judgment granted dismissing claims that vendor and purchaser conspired to frustrate a right of first refusal.
The plaintiffs, who held a right of first refusal (ROFR) over certain wind farm assets, sued the vendor and the third-party purchaser, alleging they conspired to artificially inflate the purchase price allocation of the ROFR assets to discourage the plaintiffs from exercising their rights.
The plaintiffs sought damages for breach of the duty of good faith, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and inducing breach of contract.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the vendor acted in good faith and the purchaser was entitled to act in its own commercial self-interest.
The court held that a difference in valuation or a strategic bid allocation does not, without more, constitute a breach of the duty of good faith or an intent to eviscerate the ROFR.
Motion for further documentary disclosure dismissed as plaintiffs failed to prove relevant documents were omitted.
The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 30.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order compelling the defendant to disclose a specific PhD thesis and other 'secondary sources' not included in the defendant's affidavit of documents.
The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the thesis was relevant to any matter in issue or that any specific relevant documents had been omitted.
The court also held that ordering disclosure of documents consulted by the defendant's legal team would infringe litigation privilege.
