Wendy J. Wagner

Following a motion that struck the applicant's notice of application against the CCTS, the CCTS filed an unopposed bill of costs.

The Assessment Officer found no authority to assess costs under column IV as claimed by the CCTS and instead applied column III.

Second counsel fees were disallowed as there was no Court direction awarding them.

The CCTS' bill of costs was assessed and allowed at $1,695.00.

The moving party defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which was dismissed as meritless.

The responding party plaintiff sought costs of the motion.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim had none of the indicia of a SLAPP and there was no public interest in protecting the impugned expression.

The presumption against awarding costs to a successful respondent under s. 137.1(8) was rebutted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the amount of $44,320.57.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a defamation action initiated by the plaintiff, Canadian Standards Association (CSA Group).

The court found that while the defendants' expressions related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff demonstrated substantial merit to its defamation claim.

The court further determined that the defendants had no valid defences (truth, fair comment, qualified privilege, public interest responsible communication) due to a lack of verification, unsubstantiated allegations, and evidence of malice.

The court concluded that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion to stay a defamation action pending the completion of a related Federal Court action, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the plaintiff had not justified a substantial indemnity award, as the defendants simply lost a motion they were entitled to bring.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that costs should be in the cause, noting that the unsuccessful motion caused unnecessary expense.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $21,500.

The defendants moved for a temporary stay of a defamation action in the Superior Court of Justice until the completion of a parallel copyright infringement and statutory claims action in the Federal Court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to meet the heavy onus of showing that continuing the Ontario action would cause them prejudice or injustice, or that a stay would not prejudice the plaintiff.

The court noted that the defamation action involved different substantive elements and remedies not available in the Federal Court.

The appellant physician appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons finding her guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence following the death of a patient who underwent high-volume liposuction.

The Committee found she breached standards of practice regarding extraction volumes, informed consent, and post-operative care, and that her website advertising violated regulations banning testimonials and superlatives.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Committee's findings on the standard of practice, its evidentiary rulings, and its conclusion that the advertising ban was a justified limit on freedom of expression under s. 1 of the Charter.

The penalty restricting her practice to acting as a surgical assistant in a hospital was also upheld as reasonable.

The appellant, a former federal cabinet minister, sued the prime minister, his staff, and other officials for defamation, conspiracy, and other torts after she was removed from Cabinet and the Conservative Party caucus amid allegations of misconduct.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim, finding the claims non-justiciable due to Crown prerogative and parliamentary privilege, and that the alleged defamatory statements were either not capable of being defamatory or were protected by absolute privilege.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the claims against all defendants except one Member of Parliament, finding her public statements had a possible defamatory meaning that should be determined at trial.

Following the striking of a statement of claim alleging conspiracy, defamation, misfeasance in public office, and related torts against numerous defendants, the court determined the quantum of costs payable on the successful pleadings motion.

Multiple defendant groups sought more than $205,000 in partial indemnity fees and over $20,000 in disbursements.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the fairness principles articulated in Boucher, the court considered duplication of effort among separately represented defendants with similar interests.

The court concluded that substantial overlap existed between certain defendants’ legal work and therefore limited recovery to a single set of costs for those parties.

Reduced costs totalling $108,000 in fees plus $10,560 in disbursements were awarded, subject to HST.

The plaintiff, a former Member of Parliament and cabinet minister, sued the prime minister, his senior advisors, and others for conspiracy, defamation, and other torts following her removal from cabinet and the Conservative Party caucus.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the decisions to remove the plaintiff from cabinet and caucus were protected by Crown prerogative and parliamentary privilege, respectively, and were therefore not justiciable.

The court also held that communications between the prime minister and his advisors were protected by absolute privilege, and that the Conservative Party of Canada, as an unincorporated association, lacked the capacity to be sued.

The respondent, an Ontario police constable, travelled to New York City after September 11, 2001, to assist with search and rescue efforts.

The appellant newspaper published articles alleging he misrepresented himself to authorities and interfered with rescue operations.

The respondent sued for defamation.

At trial, the appellants pleaded qualified privilege but not the English defence of responsible journalism.

The jury found for the respondent.

The Court of Appeal recognized a new responsible journalism defence but denied the appellants its protection because they had not pleaded it at trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the appellants should have the opportunity to avail themselves of the newly recognized defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.

The appellants were awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $29,856.97 payable by the Attorney General of Canada, and costs of the motion fixed at $5,991.03 payable by the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario, following an appeal regarding a sealing order and access to search warrant information.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to allow them to fundamentally recast their litigation after nine years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the amendment would inevitably prejudice the respondents, particularly given the expiry of the applicable limitation period.

The respondents' cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed.