Susan Brown

Following a motion concerning amendments to a statement of claim and the scope of discovery, the court addressed costs after the parties were unable to agree.

The moving party had largely succeeded in obtaining amendments and discovery relief, although some proposed amendments were refused.

Applying the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that costs should follow the result but reflect the partially divided outcome.

The court reduced the moving party’s claimed fees to remove work unrelated to the motion and applied a further percentage reduction to account for unsuccessful portions of the amendments.

Partial indemnity costs and reduced disbursements were awarded to the moving party.

The moving party sought leave to amend its statement of claim to add an alternative theory of liability alleging negligent hiring and supervision of a sales representative by an energy company, and also requested settlement of a discovery plan regarding documentary production and discovery scope.

The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that amendments should be granted unless they would cause non-compensable prejudice or are clearly impossible of success.

The court held that negligent hiring and supervision constitute a recognized cause of action and that the proposed amendments disclosed a tenable claim, though certain phrases were struck for being prejudicial, argumentative, or lacking material relevance.

The court permitted the amendments with modifications and ruled on disputed discovery requests, allowing several document productions subject to limitations for relevance and proportionality.

Following certification of a national class proceeding and dismissal of defendants’ summary judgment motions, the court determined costs arising from the certification and related motions.

The court applied Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles governing costs in class proceedings, including fairness, reasonable expectations of the parties, and the access to justice objectives of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The litigation involved extensive evidence, numerous defendants, and complex factual and legal issues affecting approximately 10,000 class members with alleged losses approaching $150 million.

The court rejected requests for substantial indemnity costs and declined to refer costs to formal assessment, instead fixing costs directly.

Significant partial indemnity costs and disbursements were awarded to the plaintiff, apportioned among the defendant groups.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the promoters, lawyers, and other entities involved in a charitable donation tax shelter scheme called the Donations for Canada Gift Program.

The Canada Revenue Agency had disallowed the charitable tax credits claimed by the participants, finding they lacked donative intent.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action in negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, conspiracy, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions for summary judgment, concluding that a trial was required to fully appreciate the evidence and resolve the complex factual issues, including whether the contracts were vitiated by fraud.