2 total
Litigation lenders are not liable for non-party costs unless they control the litigation abusively.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by defendants seeking to hold litigation lenders liable for costs incurred by a class member (Mr. Zuber) who pursued an exaggerated damages claim and incurred substantial debt from litigation loans.
The trial judge had refused to order the lenders to pay costs, finding they did not instigate or control the litigation in a manner amounting to an abuse of process, despite the onerous interest rates and the loans impeding settlement.
The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, reiterating that non-party costs are limited to "person of straw" or abuse of process scenarios, neither of which applied to the lenders' conduct.
The court also refused leave to cross-appeal the trial judge's decision not to award costs of the motion to the lenders, finding no error in principle.
Proposed expert evidence on pipeline profitability excluded due to lack of reliability and necessity.
During a trial for damages arising from a railway accident, the plaintiff (a class member) sought to qualify an expert witness to provide opinion evidence on the profitability of a proposed European pipeline project, claiming a loss of opportunity.
The defendants objected to the expert's admissibility.
Following a voir dire, the court refused to qualify the expert.
The court found the expert's evidence lacked reliability due to an undisclosed prior business relationship with the plaintiff.
Furthermore, the court held the expert evidence was unnecessary because the plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence or documentation demonstrating he could have obtained the financing required to build the pipeline.
