• Print
  • Civil Procedure accounts for 38 out of 812 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

1465778 Ontario Inc. v 1122077 Ontario Ltd., [2006] OJ No 4248 (ONCA)

Pro bono counsel can get costs awarded in their favour and have costs awarded against them

Anne of Green Gables Licensing Authority Inc. v. Avonlea Traditions Inc. 130 O.A.C. 369, 6 C.P.R. (4th) 57

Serious issue for adjudication; Appellant will be irreparably harmed; balance of convenience

Barlow v Citadel General Assurance Company, 2008 CanLII 3215 (ON SC)

Premiums are no longer available for lawyers who take cases on contingency basis (Walker v Ritchie).
Take into account unnecessary actions by successful party when calculating costs

Black v. Canada (Prime Minister), 54 OR (3d) 215

If Parliament has left a gap in its grant of statutory jurisdiction to the Federal Court, then superior courts have this residual power over fed matters

Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society 2012 SCC 45

See below for new public interest standing test

Chender v. Lewaskewicz, 2007 NSCA 108

Yes, a person can maintain an interest sufficient for standing in absence of a fee simple, such as a requite of occupancy or a revocable trust

Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje, 2015 SCC 42, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 69

No real and substantial connection needed.

Clark Agri Service Inc v 705680 Ontario Ltd, (1996) 2 CPC (4th) 78

R.49.04(3) – where offer to settle specifies a time for acceptance and it not accepted or withdrawn w/in that time – offer expires.

Any offer, regardless of r.49 or common law, is premised on idea that there is no material change of the thing sought to be settled over

Colavecchia v. Berkeley Hotel 2012 ONSC 4747

No, not if the booking is done through a third party that is really the one with a contract with D.

Copland v Commodore Business Machines Ltd. (1985) 52 OR(2d) 586 (SC)

The requisite level of material fact disclosure in a pleading is directly related to the nature of the allegations being made.

If immaterial facts make way into pleading, other party can move to strike them out

Danyluk v Ainsworth Technologies 2001 SCC 44, [2001] 2 SCR 460

It can, but it’s up to Court’s discretion, as when the administrative agency’s procedure deprives P of justice.
• “The rules governing issue estoppel should not be mechanically applied. The underlying purpose is to balance the public interest in the finality of litigation with the public interest in ensuring that justice is done on the facts of a particular case”

Danyluk v Ainsworth Technologies Inc, 2001 SCC 44

“Issue” - a material fact or element that may be part of a broader claim but that was distinctly put in issue AND necessarily had to be determined in the prior proceeding (ex validity of signature).

Court has discretion to deny the application of issue estoppel – more likely to use the discretion with previous admin decisions rather than court decisions.

Davydiuk v. Internet Archive Canada [2014] F.C.J. No. 1066

No, the decision is not clearly wrong since there was a substantial connection to Canada due to the availability of the online material in Canada and the corporate nexus.

Dawson v Rexcraft. Storage & Warehouse Inc. (1998), 164 DLR (4th) 257, 20 RPR (3d) 545 (Ont CA)

Only strike out if “plain and obvious” claim cannot succeed

Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Click Enterprises Inc. (2006) 267 DLR (4th) 291 (Ont SCJ)

Purchase from a website is sufficient to establish jurisdiction in the place of purchase.