Tucker

The respondent Corporation sought costs following an application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The court found the amount sought excessive, noting that the usual quantum for such applications is around $5,000.

The court declined to award higher costs based on the Corporation's choice to use out-of-province counsel and fixed costs at $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following the dismissal of the appeal, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis, which the court rejected, awarding partial indemnity costs of $6,209.88.

Both parties also sought costs for the earlier motion for leave to appeal, on which the appellants had been successful.

The court found that due to divided success between the leave motion and the appeal, no costs should be awarded for the leave motion.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award ordering compensatory and punitive damages against it for organizing illegal strikes.

The union argued the collective agreement limited the arbitrator to declaratory relief for employer grievances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably interpreted the collective agreement and the Canada Labour Code in concluding he had broad remedial authority to award damages.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission revoking its liquor licence.

The Board found the appellant permitted unlawful gambling and the sale, distribution, or consumption of controlled drugs on its premises.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Court held that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant had constructive knowledge of the drug activity and that the penalty of revocation was reasonable.

The appellant appealed an order setting aside a previous consent judgment that had dismissed the respondent's action for lack of jurisdiction.

The motions judge had set aside the consent order based on a subsequent change in jurisprudence regarding the court's jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that a change in the law does not constitute 'facts arising or discovered after' an order is made under Rule 59.06(2)(a).

The court also found that the respondent's application to re-open the action was barred by cause of action estoppel.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their application for security for costs and awarding substantial indemnity costs against them.

The defendants argued the corporate plaintiff failed to prove impecuniosity because it did not provide evidence that its creditors refused to fund the litigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding there is no absolute requirement in every case for a plaintiff to show creditors declined to fund the litigation to establish impecuniosity.

The court also upheld the motion judge's findings on the merits of the claim and the costs award.