Canada Judgment

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Leduc v. Dufour

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court dismissed the appeal and exercised its discretion to fix costs of the appeal payable by the appellant to the respondents in the all-inclusive amount of $37,000.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • The appellant shall pay to the respondents costs of the appeal in the all-inclusive amount of $37,000.

02

Material facts

Parties

Tyler Leduc

Plaintiff (respondent) Counsel: Jonathan C. Lisus; Zain Naqi

Angele Vanier

Litigation Guardian for Tyler Leduc (respondent) Counsel: Jonathan C. Lisus; Zain Naqi

Angele Vanier

Litigation Administrator of the Estate of Jean Louis Leduc (respondent) Counsel: Jonathan C. Lisus; Zain Naqi

Meghan O’Brien Estate Trustee During Litigation for the Estate of the Late Marc Dufour

Defendant (appellant Party) Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Ted Tichinoff

Litigation Administrator for the Estate of the Late Marc Dufour (defendant) Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Marc Dufour or in the alternative The Estate of Marc Dufour

Defendant Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

France Duclos

Defendant Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Jean McKay

Defendant Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Lily Bugg

Defendant Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Tina Hood

Defendant Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Glenda Petrenko

Defendant Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Joanne Despatie

Defendant Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Tina Hart

Defendant Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Krista Zielger

Defendant Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Erica Salo

Defendant Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Lyne Baird

Defendant Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Sally Edward

Defendant Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Health Sciences North (formerly Sudbury Regional Hospital)

Defendant Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Wallbridge Wallbridge

Appellant Counsel: Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C.

Amounts and remedies

  • Costs Awarded: CAD 37,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil / Appeal; Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant challenged the outcome and advanced submissions on costs during the appeal; applicant argued for a different costs outcome and quantum than the respondents sought.
Respondent
Respondents sought an order for costs of the appeal against the appellant and proposed a specific all-inclusive amount reflected in their costs outline.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court of Appeal practice and principles

    Costs ordinarily follow the event on appeal

  2. 02

    Court of Appeal Rules and appellate jurisprudence

    Appellate court has discretion to fix the quantum of costs having regard to submissions and outlines

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal and exercised its discretion to fix costs of the appeal payable by the appellant to the respondents in the all-inclusive amount of $37,000.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; costs awarded to respondents.

  • The appellant shall pay to the respondents costs of the appeal in the all-inclusive amount of $37,000.

Source and reliance status

Court of Appeal for Ontario · 25 March 2026

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Judgment· 25 March 2026

2026 ONCA 219

Leduc v. Dufour Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-03-25 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 219 Docket numbers COA-25-CV-0131 Judges van Rensburg, Katherine; Miller, Bradley; Sossin, Lorne Subject Civil Decision Content

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Leduc v. Dufour, 2026 ONCA 219 DATE: 20260325 DOCKET: COA-25-CV-0131 van Rensburg, Miller and Sossin JJ.A.

BETWEEN Tyler Leduc, an infant under the age of eighteen years by his Litigation Guardian, Angele Vanier, Angele Vanier, and Angele Vanier, Litigation Administrator of the Estate of Jean Louis Leduc Plaintiffs (Respondents) and Meghan O’Brien Estate Trustee During Litigation for the Estate of the Late Marc Dufour, Ted Tichinoff Litigation Administrator for the Estate of the Late Marc Dufour, Marc Dufour, or in the alternative, The Estate of Marc Dufour, France Duclos, Jean McKay, Lily Bugg, Tina Hood, Glenda Petrenko, Joanne Despatie, Tina Hart, Krista Zielger, Erica Salo, Lyne Baird, Sally Edward, and Health Sciences North (formerly Sudbury Regional Hospital) Defendants Geoffrey D.E. Adair, K.C., for the appellant Wallbridge Wallbridge Jonathan C. Lisus and Zain Naqi, for the respondents Heard: November 25, 2025 On appeal from the order of Justice M. Gregory Ellies of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 10, 2024, with reasons reported at 2024 ONSC 6882. COSTS: REASONS FOR DECISION [1] We dismissed this appeal for reasons reported at 2026 ONCA 3. [2] Having considered the written submissions of the parties and their costs outlines we fix costs of the appeal payable by the appellant to the respondents in the all-inclusive amount of $37,000. “K. van Rensburg J.A.” “B.W. Miller J.A.” “L. Sossin J.A.”

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Leduc v. Dufour, 2026 ONCA 3

Case cited

Ellies J. order, 2024 ONSC 6882

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.