Looseleaf Updates – January 2026

by | Jan 14, 2026 | Commentary, New Books, Tort Law | 0 comments

The following looseleaf texts have been updated:

Orkin on the Law of Costs, Release No. 8, December 2025

What’s New in this Update

This release includes updates to Chapter 3 (Solicitor-and-Client Costs), Chapter 4 (Costs of Motions), Chapter 5 (Security for Costs), Chapter 8 (Appeals), Chapter 11 (Costs in the Federal Court), Chapter 14 (Costs in the Family Court and the Small Claims Court) and Chapter 15 (Costs in Construction Actions).

Highlights

  • Appeals—Appeals from Orders as to Costs—Exceptions—This decision was the second of two motions dealing with the defendant. RB, seeking leave to have the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba reconsider a decision on costs released May 25, 2023. This litigation began in 2016 pursuant to the oppression remedies in the Corporations Act (Man.). Numerous motions were filed during the litigation dealing with a multitude of issues. The trial proceeded during two separate timeframes and lasted approximately 17 days. The trial judge then set aside two days to hear submissions on costs. The judge made an award of costs on a party-party basis. The judge did not award solicitor and client costs respecting all steps in the proceedings. RB filed a notice of motion seeking, among other things, an order granting a reconsideration of the cost decision on the merits of the case. The judge had to decide if the court should grant leave to re-open the issue of costs and reconsider the costs decision and whether the court grant a stay of the costs decision pending release of the decision from the Court of Appeal. After reviewing the caselaw presented by the parties, and applying those principles to the facts and circumstances to the case, the judge was not satisfied that RB had met the criteria to re-open the issue of costs and to reconsider the cost decision. As the judge noted, this was not a case where new evidence became available subsequent to the costs hearing and that there was a reasonable explanation for the evidence not being filed prior to the hearing. This was also not a case where there was a serious risk of a miscarriage of justice unless a rehearing was granted. Judge concluded that RB failed to meet the criteria required to reopen the cost decision. Campbell et al. v. Brar et al., 2024 A.C.W.S. 5119, 2024 MBKB 149 (Man. K.B.).
  • Costs in Construction Actions—General—Overview—In this case in the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario, the Associate Justice discharged the claim for lien of the plaintiff pursuant to the old Construction Act (Ont.), section 47 and dismissed the action as the court found that the claim for lien was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process and that the lien claimant had not complied with a previous removal order. The Associate Justice also ordered that the related certificate of action be vacated from title. Costs were awarded to the defendant BP in the amount of $85,000 for the motion and the action and to the defendant JDI in the amount of $45,000 for the motion and the action. After reviewing the chronological history of the matter regarding the registration of the lien and the commencement of the action, the court then addressed the test for liability for costs under the old Construction Act and whether FR was liable for the costs owing by the plaintiffs under that subsection. As noted, the defendants brought their motions pursuant to the old Construction Act section 86(1)(b)(i). The court went on to state, “Given this gatekeeping function, the argument was whether the costs sanction of section 86(1)(b)(i) applies only to cases where the representative has subjective actual knowledge of the baselessness of the claim for lien.” The Associate Justice, after a review of case law, found that liability for costs under section 86(1)(b)(i) required a finding that the representative subjectively knew of the baselessness of the claim for lien when it was registered and perfected. The case law also established that evidence of bad faith or improper purpose qualified the lawyer for a costs order under this subsection. The Associate Justice found that liability for costs under section 86(1)(b)(i) includes recklessness and wilful blindness. The Associate Justice concluded that there was insufficient evidence that FR had actual knowledge of the baselessness of the lien when it was preserved and perfected nor was FR reckless or wilfully blind in that regard. Accordingly, the motions were dismissed in their entirety. 2708320 Ontario Ltd. cob Viceroy Homes v. Jia Development Inc., 2024 ONSC 1608 (Ont. S.C.J.), affirmed 2024 ONSC 6519 (Ont. Div. Ct.).

Remedies in Tort, Release No. 12, December 2025

What’s New in This Release

  • This release features updates to Appendix B. Quantum Tables and Appendix IF. Issues in Focus.).

Highlights

  • APPENDIX IF. ISSUES IN FOCUS-Under what circumstances is there a duty of care between students and universities or university professors, and, if one does exist, what is the scope of that duty?-In Bella v. Young, the Supreme Court of Canada succinctly delineated the law of negligence, and illustrated the duty of care that formed the core of tortious liability based on negligence or negligent misrepresentation. However, in Bella, it was not the law of negligence that was noteworthy, because the basic legal principles of negligence were well established and fairly non-controversial. Rather, it was the novel context of the case that was of primary significance: a duty of care arising between a student and university professors, as well as with the university itself. Bella’s recognition of the existence of a duty of care is significant because it expanded the circumstances in which the law of negligence applied, with the imposition of attendant responsibilities and liabilities for damages. While Bella recognized a duty of care between students and universities/professors, the exact scope of that duty remains indeterminate. The judicial perspective on the issue of the existence of a standard of care was reinterpreted in 2010 by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Gauthier c. Saint-Germain, 2010 ONCA 309 (Ont. C.A.), where it held that where “the plaintiff alleges factors that constitute a cause of action based on torts or a breach of contract, while claiming damages, the court has jurisdiction, even if the dispute stems from academic or educational activities of the university in question”. However, even where a court is found to have jurisdiction, a plaintiff must still plead the requisite elements of the cause of action. Regarding a tort action, the Court of Appeal made it clear that a student cannot simply state that a professor was too demanding in their evaluations, or revealed their incompetence.
  • APPENDIX B. QUANTUM TABLES- Harper v. Mezo, 2024 CarswellBC 1458 – Plaintiff, aged 64, suffered injuries when the driver of the vehicle in which she was a passenger fell asleep and drove off the highway at a speed of 80 km/h, traveling into a ditch and suffering significant damage to the front passenger side. After the collision plaintiff was airlifted to hospital with three spinal fractures, and remained in hospital for 10 days. Plaintiff suffered significant injuries, including a mild traumatic brain injury, three vertebral fractures, injuries to her sternum, soft tissues injuries to her shoulder, neck, and back, an injury to her left abdominal wall, right leg, right knee, and headaches. She had significant back pain, leg pain, arm numbness, shooting pains, and spasms. Pre-existing vertigo and dizziness were aggravated. She suffered anxiety and depression, post-concussion syndrome, cognitive difficulties, sleep difficulties, and chronic pain in her left shoulder, neck, and back. The impact of these injuries on plaintiff’s life was devastating. Defendants failed to establish that plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages. Power (J.A.) J. awarded plaintiff general damages in the amount of $250,000, as well as $517,100 for cost of future care.