Steven Michael Chadwick

This is a costs decision following an application concerning the interpretation of section 17 of the Mortgages Act and its interaction with section 8 of the Interest Act.

The court had previously determined that the first mortgagee was not entitled to charge three months' interest as a penalty.

The applicants were successful and awarded $65,625.00 with pre-judgment interest.

In this costs decision, the court awarded the successful applicants $36,000 in all-inclusive costs, comprising $10,011.03 for the period prior to the offer to settle and $15,508.87 on a substantial indemnity basis after the offer, as the applicants beat their August 12, 2024 offer to settle.

This appeal arose from a dispute between a first mortgagee and a second mortgagee regarding a three-month interest charge of $65,625 imposed during the discharge of a mortgage.

The application judge held that the second mortgagee had standing to challenge the payment despite having already discharged their mortgage, and that the charge was an impermissible penalty under the Interest Act because the notice of sale remained in effect.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed these findings, holding that discharging the mortgage to facilitate the sale did not strip the second mortgagee of standing.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondents.

This decision concerns the costs arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for leave to commence a secondary market securities class action and to certify the action.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, while the plaintiff argued for partial indemnity and a discount due to the alleged novel and public interest nature of the litigation.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $693,805.39, finding no basis for substantial indemnity as there was no reprehensible conduct or unproven fraud allegations.

The court also rejected the argument for a discount under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, concluding that the issues were not novel or of broad public interest, particularly as they had been previously litigated.

A minor deduction was made for online research disbursements.

The plaintiff sought leave to bring a statutory secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act and to certify a class action for both statutory and common law negligent misrepresentation claims.

The claims arose from the defendant mining company's alleged failure to immediately disclose a pit wall instability and subsequent rock slide at its Chilean copper mine.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success that the events constituted a 'change' to the company's business, operations, or capital, as they were inherent mining risks managed in the ordinary course.

The court also dismissed the certification motion for the common law claim, holding that individual issues of reliance made a class proceeding unmanageable and not the preferable procedure.