Hospitality Ltd v George, 2015 ONSC 7370 dealt with the
test for granting leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the
Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure. On the issue of whether there was
a "conflicting decision" as required by r. 62.02(4)(a),
the fact that the motion judge declined to provide reasons on costs
was not a sufficient conflict with existing case law. Further,
Wilton-Siegel J. clarified that r. 62.02(4)(b) requires a party to
demonstrate that there is "serious reason" to doubt that
there was a proper basis for the costs award.
The defendants sought leave to appeal a costs order which
awarded costs in favour of the plaintiffs in the amount of $30,000.
Before making the costs award, the motion judge requested cost
submissions be provided by March 30, 2015. The plaintiffs provided
costs submissions according to this timeline; the defendants did
not. The motion judge issued his decision on March 31, 2015. After
receiving the costs award, the defendants inquired whether the
motion judge would still accept their costs submissions. Although
the motion judge accepted and reviewed the costs submissions, he
did not change his award. The defendants sought leave to appeal
this costs decision. The defendants argued that because the motion
judge confirmed his original $30,000 costs award without providing
any reasons, they were unable to tell if necessary adjustments were
factored into the motion judge's costs award.
The test for granting leave to appeal under r. 62.02(4)(a)
requires that there be a "conflicting decision" and that
it be "desirable that leave to appeal be granted." The
defendants argued that in the circumstances, they were entitled to
written reasons providing an indication as to whether an adjustment
was made in light of their costs submissions, and that without such
reasons it was impossible to determine the reasonableness of the
cost award. The defendants further argued that the lack of reasons
in the circumstances of the case conflicted with the decisions of
the Court of Appeal in Toronto Standard Condominium Corp No
1633 v Baghai Development Ltd, 2012 ONCA 417 and in United
States v Yemec,  OJ No 510 (SC).
Wilton-Siegel J. did not accept this argument. His Honour noted
"These decisions can only constitute conflicting decisions to
the extent that they evidence a principle that written reasons are
required in all circumstances. There is no statutory or case law
authority for such a principle." Wilton-Stiegel J. further
noted that neither s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act,
nor r. 57 require a court to provide written reasons for costs
Wilton-Siegel J. went on to find that the defendants had not
satisfied the test for leave under r. 62.02(4)(b). That is,
Wilton-Siegel J. clarified that the test for leave under r.
62.02(4)(b) will only be satisfied where a party can demonstrate
that there is "serious reason" to doubt that there was a
proper basis for the costs award of the motion judge. On the facts
of the case, the defendants were unable to meet this standard and
leave was not granted.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).