Waxer v. J.J. Barnicke Limited

Waxer v. J.J. Barnicke Limited

The court awarded costs of $5,000 to Ms. McCarthy because she was improperly added to the proceeding, incurred expenses as a result, and application of the Rule 400(3) factors justified a modest but meaningful award that will not deter legitimate PIPEDA claims but will discourage using PIPEDA as a surrogate forum for unrelated disputes.

Citation
2009 FC 171
Parties
Applicant: Mark Waxer; Respondent: Peter McCarthy; Respondent: J.J. Barnicke Limited; Added Respondent: Privacy Commissioner of Canada; Added Respondent (struck): Martha McCarthy
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under PIPEDA / Costs Determination Following Removal of Added Respondent
Outcome
Costs awarded to Ms. McCarthy in the amount of $5,000.00; Ms. McCarthy previously struck as an Added Respondent (by earlier order).
Legal Topics
PIPEDA, Judicial Review, Added Respondents, Award of Costs
Source Language
English
Privacy Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Costs PIPEDA Judicial Review Added Respondents Award of Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Waxer

Applicant

Peter McCarthy

Respondent

J.J. Barnicke Limited

Respondent

Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Added Respondent

Martha McCarthy

Added Respondent (struck)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under PIPEDA / Costs Determination Following Removal of Added Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ms. McCarthy is entitled to costs after being improperly added as an added respondent
  2. 2 Appropriate quantum of costs to be awarded
  3. 3 Application of Rule 400(3) factors in awarding costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court awarded costs of $5,000 to Ms. McCarthy because she was improperly added to the proceeding, incurred expenses as a result, and application of the Rule 400(3) factors justified a modest but meaningful award that will not deter legitimate PIPEDA claims but will discourage using PIPEDA as a surrogate forum for unrelated disputes.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to Ms. McCarthy in the amount of $5,000.00; Ms. McCarthy previously struck as an Added Respondent (by earlier order).

Orders

  • Costs, in the amount of $5000.00, are awarded to Ms. McCarthy.