Universal Workers Union (Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183) v. Ferreira

Universal Workers Union (Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183) v. Ferreira

Although para.65 incorrectly stated that Dionisio and Dias were separately represented from Ferreira, the existence of separate applications meant the original costs disposition remained appropriate; therefore the court declined to reconsider the costs of the applications.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2009 ONCA 260
Parties
Applicant (respondent): Universal Workers Union (Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183); Respondent (appellant): Victor Ferreira; Respondent (appellant): Antonio Dionisio; Respondent (appellant): John Dias a.k.a. Joao Dias
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Applications for Reconsideration of Costs (addendum)
Outcome
Application to reconsider costs declined.
Legal Topics
Costs of Applications, Reconsideration, Representation
Source Language
english
Civil Litigation Labour Law Costs Costs of Applications Reconsideration Representation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Universal Workers Union (Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183)

Applicant (respondent)

Victor Ferreira

Respondent (appellant)

Antonio Dionisio

Respondent (appellant)

John Dias a.k.a. Joao Dias

Respondent (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Applications for Reconsideration of Costs (addendum)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a misstatement about separate legal representation requires reconsideration of the costs disposition
  2. 2 Whether separate applications justify the existing costs allocation

Ratio Decidendi

Although para.65 incorrectly stated that Dionisio and Dias were separately represented from Ferreira, the existence of separate applications meant the original costs disposition remained appropriate; therefore the court declined to reconsider the costs of the applications.

Court Disposition

Application to reconsider costs declined.

Orders

  • Reconsideration of the costs of the applications is declined.
  • The costs disposition as previously ordered remains in force (costs orders dated January 31, 2008).