Royal Bank of Canada v. Societe Generale (Canada)

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.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 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. 2 Whether Rule 61.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure made the leave to appeal motions unnecessary
  3. 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.