Stephen T. Goudge

Following a successful appeal that dismissed the respondent's class action claim, the appellants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The Law Foundation of Ontario, administering the class proceedings fund, argued against a costs award under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, claiming the case involved novel issues and public interest.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding the case merely applied existing Supreme Court precedent.

Costs were awarded to the appellants, fixed at $55,000 for the appeal and $125,000 for the action.

The appellants appealed a damage award made under s. 6(6)(d) of the Arthur Wishart Act, arguing the respondent was not entitled to recover $82,127.49 paid to clear a prior franchisee's debt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the payment constituted a loss incurred in acquiring, setting up, and operating the franchise, and was therefore compensable under the Act.

The appellant appealed a contempt order and a second motion order arising from family law proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed a motion to admit fresh evidence regarding a translated document.

On the main appeal, the Court varied the contempt order to remove findings of breach that were not requested or supported by evidence.

The Court also struck unrequested restraining and child transfer orders, and reversed an order holding the appellant's share of matrimonial home proceeds as security for future child support, finding no evidence that he would fail to comply with future orders.

The appeal was allowed in part.

Following a successful appeal where the appellant prevailed on all issues, the court determined the costs of the underlying trial and application.

The appellant sought over $270,000 in total costs.

Applying the principles of fairness and reasonableness, the Court of Appeal fixed the appellant's costs of the trial at $150,000 and the costs of the application at $25,000, payable by the respondents.

The appellant failed to appear for the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $8,000.

The court also directed an authorized officer of the appellant to endorse a cheque payable by the Canada Revenue Agency currently held by the respondent law firm, or alternatively, to pay the respondent the amount of the cheque.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision striking his statement of claim for failing to reveal a reasonable cause of action.

The appellant alleged that a college, with the knowledge of the Ministry, misappropriated his paralegal curriculum.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the pleadings did not reveal a reasonable cause of action against the Ministry and that no amendment could save the claims.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants challenged a trial costs order requiring them to pay the respondent more than $509,000 in fees, much of it on an elevated indemnity basis after a without-costs offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal held that elevated costs are warranted only through the operation of rule 49.10 or where the losing party engaged in reprehensible or egregious conduct deserving of sanction.

Because the offer did not engage rule 49.10 and there was no sanction-worthy conduct, the elevated award was an error in principle.

The court further held the amount awarded was not fair and reasonable under the governing costs principles and reduced the fees award to $300,000.

The United States sought the extradition of the respondent for his alleged participation in a human smuggling operation.

The extradition judge discharged the respondent, finding insufficient evidence in the Record of the Case to warrant committal on charges of aiding unlawful entry and conspiracy.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the certified Record of the Case contained sufficient evidence, including witness identification of the respondent as a guide and driver, and a certified summary of evidence of an agreement to smuggle individuals.

The appeal was allowed and the respondent was committed for extradition.

The appellant appealed his convictions for domestic assault and his designation as a dangerous offender.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding ample evidence to support them.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge erred in concluding there was no reasonable possibility of eventual control of the appellant in the community.

The trial judge based this on the appellant's lack of motivation to change, directly contradicting unanimous expert psychiatric evidence that strict external controls would be effective regardless of motivation.

The dangerous offender designation was set aside and a new hearing ordered.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting there was no legal relationship between the appellant and the respondent contractor to support a claim.

Furthermore, the respondent municipality was statutorily authorized to add the contractor's bill to the appellant's tax bill, and the appellant failed to provide more than a bald statement to challenge the amount.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant hospital appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board placing a young person, who was found not criminally responsible, in medium security at its facility.

All parties had jointly submitted that the young person should be placed at a youth mental health facility.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's disposition unreasonable, as there was no evidentiary foundation for its conclusions regarding medical treatment availability or family support logistics.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board for an expedited new hearing.

The deceased's ex-wife and his common-law partner both claimed entitlement to his surviving spousal pension benefit.

The OMERS Appeal Sub-committee found in favour of the common-law partner.

The ex-wife successfully applied for judicial review, with the Divisional Court quashing the decision on the basis that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the standard of review for the legal obligation to give reasons is correctness, not reasonableness.

Applying a functional approach, the Court found the Tribunal's reasons were sufficient as they explained why the decision was made and permitted effective judicial review.

The appeal was allowed and the application for judicial review dismissed.

The appellants, organizations promoting traditional conceptions of morality, sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application challenging the constitutionality of prostitution provisions in the Criminal Code.

The motion judge dismissed their motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred, noting the appellants had a real, substantial, and identifiable interest and an important perspective distinct from the parties.

The appeal was allowed and the motion to intervene was granted.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences after a handgun was found in his pocket during a traffic stop.

He argued the stop under the Highway Traffic Act was a ruse for an unconstitutional criminal investigation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the stop was legitimate and not a pretext.

The court also dismissed an application to admit fresh evidence, finding it failed the Palmer test.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge rejected his evidence simply because she believed the complainant, and that the reasons were insufficient under the Sheppard test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge did not expressly articulate the basis for rejecting the appellant's evidence, a fair reading of the reasons as a whole showed she considered all the evidence, including the complainant's emotional state and the 911 call, which supported the complainant's version of events.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break, enter and theft, breach of probation, and breach of recognizance, as well as his global sentence of 44 months.

He argued the trial judge erred in the jury charge on identification evidence, restricted cross-examination on the Sophonow report, misdirected the jury on inferences from a cell phone call, and failed to grant two-for-one credit for pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible errors in the trial judge's instructions or evidentiary rulings.

The court also upheld the sentencing judge's discretionary decision to deny two-for-one credit based on the appellant's history of disobeying court orders.

The appeal from conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's assessment of damages and dismissal of claims regarding a fraudulent kick-back scheme perpetrated by two officers of the appellant company and its suppliers.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in deducting advances made by the officers from the damages awarded for secret commissions, as the officers had no authority to borrow money from the bank to repay themselves.

The damages against the officers and their company were increased to $73,641.45.

The court also set aside a counterclaim judgment in favour of a supplier, finding he had already been fully paid.

The remainder of the appeal, including claims against the bank for unauthorized withdrawals and altered documents, and claims for punitive damages, was dismissed.

The appellants appealed their convictions, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable and inconsistent with their acquittals on other counts, that the trial judge erred in assessing credibility and shifted the burden of proof, and that they received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the qualitatively different evidence on each count, correctly applied the W.(D.) principles, and that the ineffective assistance claim fell short of the required threshold.

Following a successful appeal that reversed the trial judgment, the Court of Appeal received written submissions regarding the appropriate award of trial costs.

The court awarded trial costs to the successful appellant in the fixed amount of $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant appealed his sentence for an armed robbery committed in the victim's home during a drug deal, during which the appellant fired a gun.

At the time of the offence, the appellant was on bail for similar charges and had a significant youth record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were complete, the treatment of pre-trial custody was within the trial judge's discretion, and the sentence was fit given the significant aggravating factors.