Zain Naqi

Following the dismissal of the appeal (2026 ONCA 3), the court addressed costs.

Having considered the written submissions and costs outlines of both parties, the court fixed all-inclusive costs of the appeal payable by the appellant to the respondents in the amount of $37,000.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by the Attorney General of Canada from a certification order of a class action brought by immigration detainees.

Between May 2016 and July 2023, the Canada Border Services Agency placed approximately 8,360 immigration detainees in provincial and territorial prisons instead of Immigration Holding Centers.

The respondents challenged this practice as violating sections 7, 9, 12, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and as constituting negligence.

The motion judge certified the class action, finding that the Charter and negligence claims disclosed reasonable causes of action and that common issues existed.

The appellate court upheld the certification, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's analysis.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of appeals by the Attorney General of Ontario, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, Alberta Lemon, and the Estate of Barbara Twining, and the allowance of the cross-appeal by the Attorney General of Canada and His Majesty the King in Right of Canada.

The Court orders the Town and the Families to pay costs to the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and the Town to pay costs to Canada, finding the amounts sought reasonable in light of the complexity and significance of the appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that approximately 1.4 miles of coastline (the Disputed Beach) forms part of the Saugeen Indian Reserve No. 29 under Treaty 72 of 1854.

The trial judge found that the Crown breached its fiduciary duty and acted dishonourably when a surveyor improperly excluded the beach from the reserve boundaries.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's application of treaty interpretation principles or her assessment of the historical record.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's decision to deny the bona fide purchaser for value defence to private landowners, prioritizing the First Nation's constitutionally protected treaty rights.

A cross-appeal by Canada regarding the allocation of pre-Confederation liability was allowed and referred to the next phase of the trial.

Corus Entertainment Inc. sought a declaration that Rogers Communications Inc. could not remove one of Corus's television channels from its existing packages, citing affiliation agreements and regulatory "standstill" provisions under the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations.

Corus also sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the channel's removal pending a CRTC decision and a sealing order for confidential information.

The court dismissed the application for a declaration, finding that the affiliation agreement granted Rogers the broad right to create and modify television packages, which included the right to remove channels.

The court also dismissed the interlocutory injunction, holding that the CRTC had exclusive jurisdiction over regulatory matters and that Corus failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

Finally, the sealing order was denied as the information was not deemed confidential under the "open court" principle, and the test for sealing orders was not met.

This appeal concerned the quantum of class counsel fees and a representative plaintiff honorarium following a $153 million class action settlement for unpaid overtime.

The motion judge had awarded $25 million in fees and denied a $30,000 honorarium.

The appellants sought an increase in fees to $44 million and the honorarium.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's discretionary decision on both fees and honorarium, finding no palpable and overriding error or misdirection on law.

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation, having been entirely successful in the liability phase of a bifurcated proceeding concerning the status of the "Disputed Beach" as reserve land, sought costs.

This endorsement addresses the costs awards and apportionment among the multiple defendants.

The court awarded Saugeen their costs on a partial indemnity scale, totaling $3,221,802.54, on a joint and several liability basis.

These costs were apportioned for indemnification purposes among Canada (10%), Ontario (40%), and the Town of South Bruce Peninsula (50%).

Additionally, the court granted Canada a Sanderson order, requiring the Town to pay Canada $470,000 in partial indemnity costs, recognizing Canada's success on the essential issue of the reserve boundary location.

The Town's claim for costs against Canada was dismissed.

The applicant sought a declaration for payment of over $4 million in "Take-or-Pay Fees" and unpaid invoices from a contract manufacturing agreement, alleging the respondent failed to meet minimum order volumes.

The respondent argued the matter was unsuitable for an application under Rule 14.05(3)(d) due to material facts in dispute, the enforceability of a potential penalty clause, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court agreed with the respondent, converting the application into an action for trial, finding that the dispute involved complex factual issues, including potential contract modification, estoppel, and frustration, which required discoveries and a fulsome record.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking reconsideration and amendment of a prior endorsement that approved a minor's settlement in a tort action.

The motion sought to clarify or correct findings regarding the settlement quantum, structured settlements for minors, and the enforceability of contingency fee and referral fee agreements.

The court dismissed the motion for reconsideration, except for a minor accidental slip, reaffirming the narrow scope for judicial reconsideration of decisions before formal judgment entry, emphasizing that such motions are generally not a substitute for appeal.

This decision provides supplementary reasons for judgment in a land claim case.

Following an earlier declaration that a substantial portion of Sauble Beach was reserved for the sole use and benefit of the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and forms part of Saugeen Indian Reserve No. 29, the court considered whether to grant a life interest in certain 'Disputed Lots' to current family title owners (Landowners).

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and Canada opposed this.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to impose a proprietary interest contrary to the Indian Act and Constitution Act, as reserve land is inalienable.

It also found that granting such an interest would not advance reconciliation.

Consequently, the temporary delay in the original declaration that no third parties have an interest in the land was terminated, making the declaration effective immediately.

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation brought an action seeking a declaration that a 1.4-mile strip of Sauble Beach (the Disputed Beach) is part of their unsurrendered reserve land under Treaty 72 of 1854.

The court found that the Imperial Crown's surveyor, Charles Rankin, improperly marked the northern terminus of the reserve's eastern boundary further south than the Treaty stipulated, depriving the First Nation of the promised coastline.

The court held that the Imperial Crown and the federal Crown breached their sui generis fiduciary duties and acted inconsistently with the honour of the Crown by failing to properly survey, protect, and preserve the reserve.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the First Nation's claim was defeated by Crown patents, the doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice, the Limitations Act, laches, dedication, or proprietary estoppel.

The court declared that the Disputed Beach remains unsurrendered reserve land for the sole use and benefit of the First Nation.

This is an appeal concerning indemnification for pre-closing tax liabilities following a share purchase agreement (SPA).

The appellants (FQM) sold shares of a Finnish mining company (Kevitsa) to the respondents (Boliden).

A Finnish tax reassessment increased Kevitsa's taxable income for 2012-2016, leading to additional tax liabilities for those years and consequential liabilities for 2017-2018 due to the effective loss of accumulated tax losses.

The application judge found FQM liable under both a general indemnification provision (for breach of representation that there were "no grounds for reassessment") and a tax-specific indemnity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed FQM's appeal, upholding the application judge's finding of liability under the general indemnification provision, specifically confirming that the "no grounds for reassessment" warranty was absolute and that the loss of tax losses was a reasonably foreseeable consequential loss under Ontario contract law principles.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court order staying proceedings due to the appellants' unauthorized possession and review of the respondents' privileged documents.

The parties were involved in a failed joint venture to establish a Schedule 1 bank.

The appellants, particularly Scott Penfound, obtained and accessed voluminous privileged emails and legal strategy documents belonging to the respondents from a shared file server.

The motion judge found a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, which the appellants failed to rebut by not providing evidence of the scope of their review.

The Court of Appeal upheld the stay, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that significant, ongoing prejudice existed that could not be cured by a lesser remedy, especially given the client's direct access to the information and lack of transparency.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following its decision to partially allow an appeal and award damages to the appellant.

The appellant sought trial costs of $750,000 and prejudgment interest of over $2.3 million, compounded annually.

The respondent conceded entitlement to trial costs but argued for a lower amount due to the appellant's limited success and for a reduction in prejudgment interest due to an 18-year delay in prosecuting the claim, also opposing compounding.

The Court fixed trial costs at $475,000 and prejudgment interest at $600,000, denying compound interest and reducing the amount due to the unexplained and unreasonable delay.

The applicants purchased a Finnish mining company from the respondents under a share purchase agreement containing tax indemnities.

Post-closing, the Finnish tax authority reassessed the company's pre-closing tax years, disallowing deductions and effectively eliminating tax loss carry forwards that the applicants had intended to use in post-closing years.

The applicants sought indemnification for the reassessed taxes and the resulting increased tax burden in post-closing years.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the reassessment breached the respondents' unqualified warranty that there were no grounds for reassessment.

The court further held that the increased taxes in post-closing years were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the reassessment and fell within the scope of the indemnities.

The respondents were ordered to pay the amounts already collected by the tax authority, with the remainder to be determined after the conclusion of Finnish tax appeals.

This costs endorsement from the Ontario Court of Appeal addresses the disposition of costs following a partial appeal.

The court had previously allowed the appeal in part, setting aside a motion judge's costs award against the appellants and remitting a narrow issue for trial.

The parties could not agree on costs for their respective summary judgment motions.

The court ordered that the costs on the summary judgment motions and the action to-date be reserved to the trial judge, as the trial judge would be best placed to assess these costs in the context of the final disposition of the action.

The court also clarified that the motion judge's original costs order remained against one corporate defendant.

The Respondent sought a pre-trial ruling to preclude the Applicant from raising issues related to the ownership, control, or valuation of certain companies (FCMC Companies) at trial.

The Respondent argued irrelevance, abuse of process due to a parallel civil action, issue estoppel from a prior disclosure motion, lack of necessary parties, and insufficient pleadings.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion, finding the Applicant's claims relevant to net family property and support, no abuse of process as the legal issues differed from the civil action, no issue estoppel as the prior ruling was on disclosure, and no preclusion due to non-joinder of parties or insufficient pleadings, as the Respondent had clear notice of the issues.

The Royal Bank of Canada sought to recover over $3 million from individual defendants under personal guarantees for a family company's loans.

The defendants appealed a summary judgment, arguing that their liability was joint and several and limited to a global amount based on bank employee misrepresentations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by not adequately explaining the rejection of the defendants' unchallenged evidence regarding misrepresentation and by misapplying the entire agreement clause.

A trial was ordered to determine the scope of liability under the guarantees.

In a CCAA proceeding involving a condominium project, the debtor sought to disclaim pre-sale agreements with unit purchasers.

The purchasers brought a motion for the production of an unredacted appraisal report referenced in the debtor's affidavit.

The court held that while the mandatory production requirement under Rule 30.04(2) is subject to discretion in CCAA proceedings, fairness and transparency required production of the unredacted report to the purchasers, subject to a non-disclosure agreement.

Cross-motions by a contingent creditor and real estate brokers for production of the reports were dismissed due to their lesser need and potential conflicts of interest.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action brought by the plaintiffs.

The defamation claim arose from an article published by the defendants, insolvency professionals, commenting on public receivership proceedings.

The court found that the defendants' expression related to a matter of public interest.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their claim had substantial merit or that the defendants had no valid defence, particularly regarding the defence of justification (truth) and responsible communication.

The court also found that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficiently credible evidence of serious harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendants' freedom of expression.

The motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.