Case Name:
Lacroix v.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.
PROCEEDINGS UNDER the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
Between
Nicole
Lacroix, Rosie Ladouceur, David Guffie, Frank
McCann and Robert Braybrook, plaintiffs (appellants),
and
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Marc Rochon,
Claude Poirier-Defoy, Jim Millar, Karen Kinsley, Gerald
Norbraten, Jean-Guy Tanguay, David Metzak, and Brian
Knight, being the Trustees of the
Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation Pension Fund, defendants
(respondents)
[2004] O.J. No. 4348
Court File No. 03-DV-000858
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Divisional Court - Ottawa, Ontario
Matlow, Valin and Marshman JJ.
October 20, 2004.
(9 paras.)
Practice — Appeals — Duty of appellate court
regarding conclusions or interpretation of trial judge.
Appeal by
Lacroix and the other appellants from a
decision of a motion judge and his disposition of costs.
HELD: Appeal dismissed. The reasons for decision of
the motion judge reflected his thorough understanding and
detailed analysis of the evidence and the applicable law.
His disposition flowed logically from that analysis and
deserved deference.
Lacroix and the others had not
demonstrated that the decision was clearly wrong.
Counsel:
J. Brett Ledger and Lawrence Ritchie, Solicitors for the
Defendants (Respondents).
W.J. Sammon and James B. Barnes, Solicitors for the
Plaintiffs.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
¶ 1
MATLOW J. (endorsement):— This appeal is
dismissed.
¶ 2
Taken in their entirety, the reasons for decision
of the motion judge reflect his thorough understanding and
detailed analysis of the evidence and the applicable law.
¶ 3
His disposition of the motion before him flows
logically from that analysis and deserves our deference.
¶ 4
We are not persuaded that the appellants have met
the burden of demonstrating that it was clearly wrong.
¶ 5
Written reasons will follow relating to the issue
of our jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
¶ 6
The appellants' costs appeal is dismissed. We are
not persuaded that we should interfere with the manner in
which the motion judge exercised his discretion and made his
award.
¶ 7
The respondents' motion for leave to appeal costs
is dismissed.
¶ 8
The respondents are entitled to their costs of the
appeal before us, fixed at $15,000.00 all inclusive. [See Note
1 below]
Note 1: See Boucher (Court of Appeal).
¶ 9
We make no award of costs regarding the
respondents' motion for leave to appeal costs.
MATLOW J.
QL UPDATE: 20041101
qp/s/qw/qlsxk