Susan Bridget Keenan

The applicant sought expenses following a successful appeal of an arbitrator's decision that had dismissed his application for accident benefits on preliminary issues.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal and permitted an expense hearing if the parties could not agree.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was 100% successful on the appeal and was therefore entitled to his expenses for that proceeding.

As the applicant's bill of costs included work for the entire arbitration rather than just the appeal, the arbitrator estimated the reasonable hours spent on the appeal and awarded $2,418.20 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

Following the dismissal of the insured's appeal, the successful insurer requested an expense hearing.

The insurer sought $7,446.03 in legal fees and disbursements for the appeal proceeding.

The Director's Delegate found the amount sought excessive, noting the insured was self-represented and her submissions largely attempted to adduce new evidence and re-argue determined issues.

The Delegate fixed the expenses payable by the insured to the insurer at $3,000.00.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying her claims for caregiver, housekeeping, attendant care, and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that the arbitrator erred in law, lacked procedural fairness, and misapprehended evidence.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator properly weighed the evidence, made reasonable findings of fact, and committed no errors of law or breaches of procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's order precluding him from proceeding to arbitration for failure to attend insurer examinations (IEs) and finding his claim for attendant care benefits was time-barred.

The appellant was incarcerated at the time of the scheduled IE.

The Director's Delegate held that the arbitrator erred in refusing to consider the appellant's reasonable excuse for non-attendance.

The Delegate found that incarceration was a reasonable excuse, and the appellant had no duty to reschedule the IE upon his release; his only duty was to attend a properly scheduled IE.

The Delegate also found that the attendant care benefits claim was not time-barred, as it was for a limited period ending before the insurer's denial, and a formal denial is not a prerequisite for a dispute.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitrator's order was rescinded.

In an action concerning an alleged conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of her share of her late father's estate, the plaintiff moved for further production of pre-2004 medical records from the defendant doctor and the federal government regarding her father's shock therapy in 1969 or 1970.

The defendant Birch also moved to compel the plaintiff to answer a refusal to obtain records from Bell Canada regarding an alleged wiretap.

The court dismissed all motions, finding the plaintiff's production requests lacked relevance and violated the principle of proportionality, and that Birch's motion for Bell Canada records was also disproportionate given the minimal relevance and alternative remedies available.

The moving party, a mental health centre, brought a motion to suspend a placement decision of the Ontario Review Board pending appeal.

The respondent, a dual status offender, was ordered by the Board to be transferred from a federal penitentiary to the mental health centre.

The moving party argued that the transfer posed a safety risk and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that the test for suspending a placement decision is whether the moving party has shown a compelling reason to doubt the reasonableness of the Board's decision concerning the mental condition of the accused.

The moving party failed to meet this heavy burden.

The applicant unions brought an application seeking a declaration that the Expenditure Restraint Act is unconstitutional and of no force and effect, arguing it violated their members' freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by rolling back and capping wage increases.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the legislation did not substantially interfere with the freedom of association, as it applied broadly across the federal public sector and did not target associational activities.

The court further held that even if there was a breach of s. 2(d), it would be saved under s. 1 of the Charter as a demonstrably justified response to the 2008 global economic crisis.

Following a successful motion dismissing the action, the defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $25,292.42.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded or, alternatively, that costs should be limited to $5,000, asserting that many steps taken by the defendant were unnecessary and that the governing jurisdictional authority evolved after the action commenced.

The court applied s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that costs must be fair and reasonable.

Considering the complexity of the motion, the conduct of counsel during cross-examinations, and the fact that the motion resolved the entire action, the court reduced the requested amount.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 payable to the successful defendant.

Following a successful appeal by the Attorney General of Canada, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondents, who were unsuccessful on the appeal, sought costs on the basis that they were public interest litigants raising issues of broad public importance regarding s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The appellant sought costs following the event.

The Court of Appeal set aside the application judge's costs award and ordered no costs for the appeal, finding that while the case raised issues of broad public interest and the jurisprudence had shifted during the appeal, there was no rationale for awarding costs to unsuccessful public interest litigants.

Ontario-resident plaintiffs sued a London hotel in Ontario after a slip and fall in a hotel bathroom during a vacation in the United Kingdom.

The defendant hotel moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.

Applying the presumptive connecting factors set out in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held there was no real and substantial connection between Ontario and the dispute.

The hotel had no office, employees, or targeted marketing in Ontario, and the mere fact that the hotel could be booked through a Canadian travel rewards website did not establish that it carried on business in the province.

The court also found that no contract connected with the dispute was formed in Ontario.

The applicants, independent private associations of RCMP members, challenged the constitutionality of provisions excluding RCMP members from the Public Service Labour Relations Act and establishing the Staff Relations Representative Program (SRRP).

The application judge found that the SRRP violated s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney General's appeal, holding that s. 2(d) protects the right to collective bargaining only in a derivative sense, and it was not effectively impossible for RCMP members to meaningfully exercise their freedom of association.

The cross-appeal regarding freedom of expression and the exclusion from the PSLRA was dismissed.