Login
  • LAW FIRMS
  • CASES
  • DEALS
9 Feb 2024
A&H Asset Auctions Inc. v. ABC Corporation et al

Firms / Organizations involved

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP; Not Specified; Blaney McMurtry LLP; Department of Justice Canada

Plaintiff

A&H ASSET AUCTIONS INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Fogler, Rubinoff LLP
Lawyer(s)

Young Park

Defendant

ABC CORPORATION
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU OF CENTRAL ONTARIO INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Blaney McMurtry LLP
Lawyer(s)

Sheldon Inkol

CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
Law Firm / Organization
Department of Justice Canada
Lawyer(s)

Wendy Wright

Kevin George Dias

Sarah Mackenzie

CANADA (COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION)
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
CANADA (MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES CANADA)
Law Firm / Organization
Department of Justice Canada
Lawyer(s)

Wendy Wright

Kevin George Dias

Sarah Mackenzie

CANADA (MINISTER OF CANADIAN HERITAGE)
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL)
Law Firm / Organization
Department of Justice Canada
Lawyer(s)

Wendy Wright

Kevin George Dias

Sarah Mackenzie

ANGELA SHEN
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
DARREN KLOEZE
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
PABLO SOBRINO
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
ROBB FLEMMING
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
JOEL GIROUARD
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
DAN WILCOCK
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
MIKE FABBRO
Law Firm / Organization
Department of Justice Canada
Lawyer(s)

Wendy Wright

Kevin George Dias

Sarah Mackenzie

SANDI WRIGHT
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
JOHN DOES
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
JANE DOES
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
MARLENE CROUTEAU
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified

  • ·  Background:

  • The case involves motions brought under Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (CJA) by the Crown Defendants (including Canada Revenue Agency and other governmental bodies) and BBB to dismiss A&H's claims.
  • Section 137.1 is designed to prevent "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" (SLAPPs).

  • ·  Key Legal Points:

  • Costs on Motions: The Crown Defendants and BBB sought costs on a full indemnity basis after their motions to dismiss were granted.
  • Presumptive Costs: Section 137.1(7) of the CJA typically entitles successful defendants to full indemnity costs unless deemed inappropriate.

  • ·  Court's Decision on Costs:

  • Crown Defendants: Awarded partial indemnity costs of $150,416, instead of the full indemnity costs claimed ($271,078.32). The court found the claim of full indemnity costs excessive and noted the lack of compelling evidence that A&H's conduct warranted such an award.
  • BBB: Similarly awarded partial indemnity costs of $87,122.55. The court did not find sufficient justification to deviate from a partial indemnity scale.

  • ·  Rationale:

  • The court considered the proportionality of the costs in relation to the nature and complexity of the issues raised.
  • It emphasized fairness and reasonableness, guided by relevant case law and the principle that costs should deter frivolous litigation without imposing undue hardship on the parties.

Court

Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Case Number

CV-15-540516

Practice Area

Civil litigation

Amount

$ 237,539

Winner

Defendant

Trial Start Date

Download documents