Thomas J. Dunne

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a partial summary judgment motion.

The appellants (lenders) and respondents (Deloitte) agreed on the quantum of costs for both the motion below and the appeal but disagreed on timing of payment.

The respondents argued costs should remain in the cause based on an alleged agreement that no money change hands on interlocutory motions until final resolution.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding it inconsistent with the respondents' own prior positions and earlier costs orders in the litigation.

The court determined that the motion judge erred in granting partial summary judgment and that costs should be fixed and payable immediately.

Following a successful partial summary judgment motion, the defendants sought costs of $700,000 plus disbursements payable forthwith.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be in the cause.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs that costs should be in the cause, as the trial was imminent and the trial judge would be in the best position to allocate liability for costs.

The court clarified that the costs would be in the cause of the specific plaintiff's action, not the consolidated action involving a receiver.

Lenders brought a class proceeding alleging negligent misrepresentation by auditors in connection with audited financial statements relied upon when extending a large syndicated loan.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim on the basis that no duty of care was owed to the lending syndicate.

Applying the principles from Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, the court held that auditors generally owe duties to the corporation and its shareholders but not to third-party lenders due to concerns about indeterminate liability.

Although the auditors knew lenders would likely review the statements, they did not know the identity of the lenders nor prepare the audits for the specific lending transaction.

The court concluded the circumstances did not negate indeterminate liability and no duty of care arose.

Following the dismissal of two related civil actions, the successful defendants sought a costs order requiring the plaintiffs’ counsel personally to pay a portion of the trial costs associated with calling 22 witnesses.

The defendants argued that the evidence of those witnesses was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule and that counsel’s decision to call them wasted approximately ten days of trial time.

The court considered Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s inherent jurisdiction to award costs against a solicitor.

The judge held that such orders should be made only in rare circumstances and typically require conduct approaching recklessness, abuse of process, or bad faith.

The court concluded that counsel’s decision to lead the evidence was not reckless or abusive and declined to order costs against counsel personally.

In a billion‑dollar negligence class action against auditors arising from allegedly defective audit reports relied upon by lenders, the plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of investigative materials held by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario relating to disciplinary proceedings against two audit partners.

The court held that production from a non‑party requires proof that the documents are relevant and that it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed without them.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate unfairness because they already possessed the underlying documentary record and extensive discovery evidence, and the investigator’s report was not necessary for the pending partial summary judgment motion or the pleaded issue estoppel.

The court further held that the materials were protected by a case‑by‑case privilege under the Wigmore criteria arising from confidential communications between the professional regulator and its members during disciplinary investigations.

A costs decision following dismissal of an application in a multi‑jurisdictional commercial dispute.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $28,000 while the unsuccessful party requested that costs be fixed at approximately half that amount and payable in the cause.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered the complexity of jurisdictional issues, the experience and efficiency of counsel, and the reasonableness of the claimed hours and rates.

The court held that the appropriate award should reflect overall reasonableness rather than a line‑by‑line bill assessment and fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court also set aside a registrar’s administrative order dismissing the action as abandoned, finding no delay in prosecution.

The defendant, a resident of South Africa, brought a motion to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction or to strike the statement of claim.

The plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, alleged an international conspiracy involving the defendant that resulted in the misappropriation of funds intended for a wind power project.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test and found that the plaintiff established a good arguable case for jurisdiction, as the alleged tort and breach of contract had sufficient connections to Ontario.

The court also declined to strike the pleadings, finding them adequate at this early stage, and validated the service of the statement of claim despite technical deficiencies.

Following the respondents’ successful defence of a motion for injunctive and related relief, the court was required to fix costs after the parties failed to agree.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $114,000, alleging that the applicants’ conduct was reprehensible and that a settlement offer justified enhanced costs under Rule 49.

The court held that the settlement offer was not timely and that the applicants’ conduct did not meet the high threshold for substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01, the court concluded the motion was relatively straightforward and that the respondents’ use of multiple counsel was unnecessary.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $50,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, HST, and earlier costs awarded in the cause.

In a certified class proceeding arising from a failed public company and alleged negligent audits, both sides brought refusals motions concerning answers and undertakings given during examinations for discovery.

The plaintiffs alleged that the auditors negligently prepared audit reports relied upon by lenders in extending a $1.5‑billion credit facility, while the auditors denied any duty of care and advanced additional defences.

The court reviewed the permissible scope of discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, emphasizing relevance, materiality, proportionality, and recognized categories justifying refusals.

Applying those principles, the court ruled on numerous disputed questions, ordering some answers and upholding others as unanswerable, irrelevant, disproportionate, or privileged.

Costs of the refusals motions were ordered to be in the cause.

In a certified class proceeding arising from a failed public company and alleged negligent audits, both sides brought refusals motions concerning answers and undertakings given during examinations for discovery.

The plaintiffs alleged that the auditors negligently prepared audit reports relied upon by lenders in extending a $1.5‑billion credit facility, while the auditors denied any duty of care and advanced additional defences.

The court reviewed the permissible scope of discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, emphasizing relevance, materiality, proportionality, and recognized categories justifying refusals.

Applying those principles, the court ruled on numerous disputed questions, ordering some answers and upholding others as unanswerable, irrelevant, disproportionate, or privileged.

Costs of the refusals motions were ordered to be in the cause.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction preventing a neighbouring condominium developer from installing translucent panels on the west wall of a nearly completed building.

The applicant alleged the design breached a negative covenant allegedly agreed upon during planning approval discussions that the wall would contain no windows.

Applying the test from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), the court held the applicant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried and provided no evidence of irreparable harm, particularly in the absence of expert evidence regarding impacts on future redevelopment or privacy.

The court also found the balance of convenience strongly favoured the developer because construction was substantially complete and the applicant had delayed unreasonably in bringing the motion.

The delay and resulting prejudice supported the equitable defence of laches.

In long‑running commercial litigation concerning an alleged oral agreement granting the plaintiffs a 50% interest in a casino development project, the parties brought pre‑trial motions addressing potential conflicts of interest involving defence counsel and issue estoppel relating to alleged spoliation of evidence.

The plaintiffs clarified that their spoliation allegations were directed only at the defendants and not at defence counsel, and that they would not seek to call defence counsel as witnesses.

The court treated these statements as binding admissions and issued declarations preventing the plaintiffs from alleging misconduct, spoliation, or false statements by defence counsel at trial.

Remaining issues, including whether issue estoppel barred certain spoliation arguments, were left for determination by the trial judge.