Home
David Scrimshaw's Library tagged → View Popular
Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, 2009 FCA 309 (CanLII)
It is difficult, if not impossible, to conclude that the answer (either yes or no) can be said to fall within a range of possible acceptable outcomes. There is much to be said for the argument that where there are two conflicting lines of authority interpreting the same statutory provision, even if each on its own could be found to be reasonable, it would not be reasonable for a court to uphold both
-
[50]
There is
binding authority to the effect that different standards of review can apply to
different legal questions depending on the nature of the question and the
relative expertise of the tribunal in those particular matters -
[75]
The proper
approach to statutory interpretation has been articulated repeatedly by the
Supreme Court of Canada and is so entrenched that reference to specific
authority is not necessary. The goal is to seek the intent of Parliament by
reading the words of the provision in context and according to their grammatical
and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme and the object of the
statute. - 2 more annotations...
Shuniah (Municipality) v. Buryniuk, 2009 CanLII 55362 (ON S.C.)
[18] In Yepremian v. Weisz 1993 CanLII 5483 (ON S.C.), (1993), 16 O.R. (3d) 121 (Gen. Div.), the court held that “rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure means that a fixed, certain and understandable offer must be outstanding down to the trial in order for there to be cost consequences”. I do not agree with the Respondents that the terms in these offers made are so vague and all-encompassing as to preclude compliance. I further note that the Respondents made no counter-offer to the Applicant’s first offer. If the first offer was otherwise acceptable the Respondents could have made an amended counter-offer which addressed the vagueness problem
R. v. Brown, 2009 ONCA 633 (CanLII)
While it may not be possible to lay responsibility for the violation of constitutional rights at the feet of any particular prosecutor, that does not preclude a costs award to sanction the failure of the Crown to take any steps to avoid the entirely predictable violation of the statutory and Charter rights of the respondents that occurred in this case
-
the Crown laid great emphasis on the fact that this was a prosecution that
involved serious charges against dangerous individuals. That, however,
cannot justify any departure from the rights secured by the Criminal Code and the by the
Charter. -
Quite apart from the need to respect the rights of those eventually found to be
guilty, sweeps of this kind will often bring before the court bystanders who
were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time
Factor Gas Liquids Inc. v. Jean, 2008 CanLII 47474 (ON S.C.)
Given the significant benefits that have already accrued to Margaret Jean at Factor’s expense, it would be inequitable in the extreme if Factor were required to pay the Jean Defendants costs on the Anton Piller set aside, without any likelihood of receiving its costs on the summary judgment motion
Factor Gas Liquids Inc. v. Jean, 2008 CanLII 35676 (ON S.C.)
-
[48] The Anton Piller order was set
aside because of non disclosure by Factor. The ex parte motion filed to
obtain the Anton Piller order violated the fundamental principles related to
obtaining ex parte orders. This is even more egregious than it might
otherwise have been since Factor was seeking an order that required a homeowner
to permit his home to be searched. -
[50] In my view, on the authority of
Stonehocker (supra) and Yemec (supra) this is a classic case to
apply Factor’s undertaking on damages to the costs of the defendants. I
find that they are entitled to full indemnity costs against Factor on their
set-aside motions. - 2 more annotations...
Forsyth v. Li, 2009 CanLII 24637 (ON S.C.)
[28] I will not award costs on a substantial indemnity basis but will award costs at the high end of the partial indemnity range to indicate the court’s disapproval of the tactic of pursuing an unmeritorious claim for a substantial amount of money against an elderly neighbour who sought to exercise his legitimate rights as a citizen to inquire whether Forsyth’s use complied with the City’s By‑law, and making inappropriate allegations against counsel for Mr. Li.
-
In view of the City’s By‑Law Enforcement Officer’s error in interpreting the
by‑law and also the reasonable offer to settle made by Mr. Li to the City,
I will not order Mr. Li to pay any costs to the City on the summary motion.
Coastline Corporation Ltd. v. Canaccord Capital Corporation, 2009 CanLII 21758 (ON S.C.)
69] There is no basis in law or equity to support Coastline’s submission that Canaccord should not be entitled to security for costs because Canaccord chose to open an account with Coastline without security
-
[71] If Coastline’s submission were
accepted, security for costs would be impossible to obtain in litigation brought
by non-residents in commercial matters unless the defendant insisted on security
for the commercial transaction as part of the contractual terms. However,
any security obtained to protect a party engaged in business dealings with a
non-resident has no bearing on security for costs, which protects defendants
from being unable to collect costs incurred in litigation. The purpose of
Rule 56.01(1)(a) is to ensure that when non-resident plaintiffs choose to
litigate in Ontario, defendants will be able to collect their costs of the
litigation if the non-resident plaintiff is unsuccessful -
the decision to obtain security prior to doing business is wholly unrelated to
the protection of defendants for costs in the case of non-resident plaintiffs
and corporations (Ontario or otherwise) with insufficient assets to pay a costs
award - 1 more annotations...
CanLII - 2008 CanLII 69501 (ON S.C.)
it was open to the City of Burlington to pay the $200,000 sought by the Plaintiffs to settle this matter, and to them claim indemnification from the individual Defendants, were they unwilling to come to the table as they seem to have been, in the days preceding the commencement of this trial.
R. v. Ontario (Review Board), 2009 ONCA 16 (CanLII)
The principles that have guided the awarding of costs against the Crown should apply to cost awards against the ORB.
-
the ORB is a specialized statutory tribunal created under Part XX.1 of the
Criminal Code and must act in the
public interest, not unlike the Crown. The principles that have guided the
awarding of costs against the Crown should apply to cost awards against the ORB. -
It is only where the accused can show “a marked and unacceptable departure from
the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution” that a costs order will be
made”. - 1 more annotations...
Reasons disappear from Supreme Court decision
“In light of the abolition of the Court Challenges Program, which would have applied to a case such as this one, and since the respondent [Crown] appears to have acknowledged the importance of the principles in issue in this case, as she has not asked for costs, the appellants are awarded the requested amount.”
CanLII - 2008 CanLII 54966 (ON S.C.)
Costs: it was unreasonable for the plaintiff to have allowed the action to be continued under the ordinary procedure. Thus, the mandatory provisions of sub-rule 76.13 (3) apply. Even if the plaintiff’s first offer to settle could still be considered to be open for acceptance at the outset of trial, which I doubt, it is trumped by the clear provisions of sub-rule 76.1
-
[48]
The plaintiff’s damages are calculated by
determining his loss. His loss is calculated by determining the amount he
would have earned during the reasonable notice period had he continued to be
employed by the defendant, less the amount he actually earned during that
period, or the amount he could have earned during that period by acting
reasonably. The amount the plaintiff earned or could have earned is not a
deduction from the plaintiff’s damages; rather, it represents part of the
calculation of what the plaintiff’s damages are in the first place
Pacific Pants Company Inc. v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 FC 1050 (CanLII)
[48] The jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Appeal and of this Court clearly holds that the provisions of paragraph 18.1(3)(b) of the Federal Courts Act which provides that the Court, on a judicial review application may, in setting aside a decision when referring that decision back for re-determination, do so “with such directions as it considers to be appropriate” are sufficiently broad to authorize the Court to direct the decision to be made on reconsideration by the federal tribunal but such a direction is an exceptional power which should only be exercised in the clearest of circumstances
-
Such will rarely be the case when the issue in dispute is essentially factual
in nature -
particularly when, as here, the tribunal has not made the relevant
finding. - 6 more annotations...
Rashid v. Shaher, 2008 CanLII 47480 (ON S.C.)
[16] The ill-conceived transfer of the Revell Drive property resulted in two court appearances that should have been entirely unnecessary. Under the circumstances, the Plaintiff is entitled to significant indemnification and in my view this is an appropriate case to award substantial indemnity costs for the two appearances
-
1362 Revell Drive, Manitock, Ontario
Figliola v. Ontario (Director, Family Responsibility Office), 2008 ONCJ 366 (CanLII)
The case law appears to be clear that an order for costs can be made against the Director of the F.R.O. merely in the face of special and unusual circumstances.
-
she was consenting to a refraining order being issued
-
[22]
The case law appears to
be clear that an order for costs can be made against the Director of the F.R.O.
merely in the face of special and unusual circumstances. - 4 more annotations...
Garfin v. Mirkopoulos, 2008 CanLII 41572 (ON S.C.)
Lawyers should not expect to get paid for work that is not in their client's interest.
-
This lengthy and protracted litigation was not the right answer for this
couple. It is incumbent on experienced solicitors to conduct what is, in
effect, a cost benefit analysis of every case.
Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada, Re, 2003 CanLII 18327 (ON C.A.)
Many factors may bear on whether lawyers are entitled to a premium over their hourly rates. These factors include the difficulty and complexity of the case, the responsibility assumed by the lawyer, the amount in issue, the importance of the case to the client, the skill shown by the lawyer, the result achieved, the client’s ability to pay and the lawyer’s corresponding financial risk. ...In an insolvency, the interest and position of the creditors and the views of the receiver or liquidator must also be considered.
-
[17]
Many factors may bear on whether lawyers are entitled to a
premium over their hourly rates. These factors include the difficulty and
complexity of the case, the responsibility assumed by the lawyer, the amount in
issue, the importance of the case to the client, the skill shown by the lawyer,
the result achieved, the client’s ability to pay and the lawyer’s corresponding
financial risk -
In an insolvency, the interest and position of the creditors and the views of
the receiver or liquidator must also be considered. - 3 more annotations...
Greer v. Homer, 2008 CanLII 39785 (ON S.C.)
the appropriate disposition of costs on a summary judgment motion that was a “close call”: payable in the cause
Lee v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 CanLII 38261 (ON S.C.)
[36] I suggest that the appropriate approach to dealing with costs where any litigation guardian is involved is that adopted in 1465778 Ontario Inc. for pro bono parties. In that case the court decided:
[35] … , allowing pro bono parties to be subject to the ordinary costs consequences that apply to other parties has two positive consequences: (1) it ensures that both the non-pro bono party and the pro bono party know that they are not free to abuse the system without fear of the sanction of an award of costs; and (2) it promotes access to justice
-
it is not appropriate to adopt a policy which assumes that public officials will
not fulfill their statutory duty because of the risk that the government might
have to pay costs of litigation -
a number of cases say that the policy of awarding costs should be different
depending on whether the litigation guardian acts for the plaintiff or the
defendant. - 5 more annotations...
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in costs
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo