Royal Bank of Canada v. Societe Generale (Canada)
The panel held that Rule 61.07 did not apply because RBC's appeal was to the Court of Appeal while SoGen's and CitiCap's appeals were to the Divisional Court and therefore leave was necessary; the court fixed the costs of the leave to appeal motions at $22,000 (SoGen) and $12,000 (CitiCap) inclusive of disbursements and GST and refused RBC's request to have the panel determine the scale of costs for the underlying summary judgment motions, leaving that issue to Ground J. as previously ordered.
- Citation
- 2007 ONCA 302
- Parties
- Plaintiff (appellant): Royal Bank of Canada; Defendant (respondent): Société Générale (Canada); Defendant (respondent): Bert Coish; Defendant (respondent): CitiCapital Limited; Defendant (respondent): Bank of Montreal; Defendant (respondent): American Home Assurance Company; Defendant (respondent): Chubb Insurance Company of Canada; Defendant (respondent): Liberty Mutual Insurance Company of Canada (as represented by Liberty International Canada); Defendant (respondent): Gulf Insurance Company UK Ltd.; Defendant (respondent): Lloyd's Syndicates 204, 1007, 435 & 1212
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 23 April 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal From Superior Court (summary Judgment Motions) / Court of Appeal Costs Endorsement After Judgment; Determination of Costs of Motions for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part on costs clarification; fixed costs for motions for leave to appeal; refused to decide scale of costs for summary judgment motions.
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Costs Assessment, Procedure for Combining Appeals, Rules of Civil Procedure
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Royal Bank of Canada
Plaintiff (appellant)
Société Générale (Canada)
Defendant (respondent)
Bert Coish
Defendant (respondent)
CitiCapital Limited
Defendant (respondent)
Bank of Montreal
Defendant (respondent)
American Home Assurance Company
Defendant (respondent)
Chubb Insurance Company of Canada
Defendant (respondent)
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company of Canada (as represented by Liberty International Canada)
Defendant (respondent)
Gulf Insurance Company UK Ltd.
Defendant (respondent)
Lloyd's Syndicates 204, 1007, 435 & 1212
Defendant (respondent)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Superior Court (summary Judgment Motions) / Court of Appeal Costs Endorsement After Judgment; Determination of Costs of Motions for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal's fixed appeal costs of $85,000 included costs of the motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court
- 2 Whether Rule 61.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure made the leave to appeal motions unnecessary
- 3 What costs should be fixed for SoGen's and CitiCap's motions for leave to appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The panel held that Rule 61.07 did not apply because RBC's appeal was to the Court of Appeal while SoGen's and CitiCap's appeals were to the Divisional Court and therefore leave was necessary; the court fixed the costs of the leave to appeal motions at $22,000 (SoGen) and $12,000 (CitiCap) inclusive of disbursements and GST and refused RBC's request to have the panel determine the scale of costs for the underlying summary judgment motions, leaving that issue to Ground J. as previously ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part on costs clarification; fixed costs for motions for leave to appeal; refused to decide scale of costs for summary judgment motions.
Orders
- Costs of SoGen's motion for leave to appeal fixed at $22,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.
- Costs of CitiCapital Limited's motion for leave to appeal fixed at $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment