4 total
Plaintiff's refusals motion dismissed and defendants' cross-motion granted in class action certification cross-examinations.
The plaintiff in a proposed class action brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused by various defendants during cross-examinations on affidavits filed for a certification motion.
The Solart defendants brought a cross-motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions he refused during his cross-examination.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding the questions posed to the defendants were irrelevant, unanswerable, or sought legal opinions.
The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, ordering the plaintiff to re-attend and answer questions related to the common issues, as they were relevant to testing the certification requirements.
The court awarded the respondent $90,000 in partial indemnity costs for the appeal, deducting costs for an unsuccessful motion to quash.
This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal and a motion to quash.
The respondent, successful on the appeal, sought substantial indemnity costs of over $230,000.
The appellants argued for a net award of $30,000.
The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity, agreeing that costs for the unsuccessful motion to quash should be deducted.
The court ultimately awarded the respondent $90,000 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs, finding the amounts and issues involved in the appeal significant.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that an arbitration agreement stating disputes shall be 'finally settled' precludes appeals on questions of law.
This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision that denied leave to appeal an arbitration award exceeding $100 million.
The central issue was whether the arbitration agreement precluded appeals on questions of law, specifically interpreting phrases like "finally settled" and "final and binding" in the context of the Arbitration Act, 1991 and ICC Rules.
The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the arbitration agreement precluded appeals, thereby confirming that leave to appeal was not available.
The court also addressed and dismissed a motion to quash the appeal, clarifying the narrow circumstances under which a denial of leave to appeal by a Superior Court judge can be appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with no costs awarded due to missing costs outline.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Conway J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.
No costs were awarded as the responding parties failed to file a costs outline.
