Sioux Lookout (Municipality) v. Canada (Attorney General)
The court exercised its discretion to award the appellant municipality party-and-party costs for the application and appeal and allocated specific costs: Ontario to pay the application, factum motion and appeal costs; Lac Seul First Nation and Northern Nishnawbe Education Council to pay the costs of the stay motion;...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 ONCA 93
- Parties
- Applicant: The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout; Respondent: The Attorney General of Canada; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario; Respondent: Minister of Transportation for the Province of Ontario; Respondent: Minister of Natural Resources, Ontario; Respondent: Lac Seul First Nation; Respondent: Northern Nishnawbe Education Council
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 3 February 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal — Costs Endorsement
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to the appellant municipality with specified allocation among respondents
- Legal Topics
- Costs Allocation, Stay Motion, Appeal Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout
Applicant
The Attorney General of Canada
Respondent
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
Respondent
Minister of Transportation for the Province of Ontario
Respondent
Minister of Natural Resources, Ontario
Respondent
Lac Seul First Nation
Respondent
Northern Nishnawbe Education Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal — Costs Endorsement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant municipality was entitled to costs
- 2 How costs should be allocated among the respondents, including allocation for the stay motion
Ratio Decidendi
The court exercised its discretion to award the appellant municipality party-and-party costs for the application and appeal and allocated specific costs: Ontario to pay the application, factum motion and appeal costs; Lac Seul First Nation and Northern Nishnawbe Education Council to pay the costs of the stay motion; and no costs awarded for or against Canada.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to the appellant municipality with specified allocation among respondents
Orders
- Costs of the application - $50,000 payable by Ontario
- Costs of the stay motion - $6,000 payable by LFSN and NNEC
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Sioux Lookout (Municipality) v. Canada (Attorney General) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-02-03 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 93 Docket numbers C52094 Judges Sharpe, Robert J.; Blair, Robert Ashley; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Sioux Lookout (Municipality) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 ONCA 93 DATE: 20110203 DOCKET: C52094 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Sharpe, Blair and Rouleau JJ.A. The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout Applicant (Appellant in Appeal) and The Attorney General for Canada, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario, represented by the Minister of Transportation for the Province of Ontario, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Attorney General, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources, Lac Seul First Nation and Northern Nishnawbe Education Council Respondents (Respondents in Appeal) Allan D. McKitrick, for the Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout Peter H. Griffin and Danalyn J. MacKinnon, for Northern Nishnawbe Education Council William Major, for Lac Seul First Nation Walter Myrka and Judie Im, for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario Joseph Langan, for the Attorney General of Canada Heard: October 21, 2010 On appeal from the judgment of Justice H.M. Pierce of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 14, 2010, with reasons reported at 71 M.P.L.R. (4th) 242. ENDORSEMENT RE COSTS [1] We have now received and considered the parties written submissions as to costs. [2] We agree that the appellant municipality is entitled to costs of the proceedings before the application judge and before this court on a party and party basis. We also accept the submission that apart from the costs of the stay motion, Ontario should have to bear the costs of the application and appeal, a submission not resisted by Ontario. [3] We fix the costs as follows, all figures inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes: · Costs of the application - $50,000 payable by Ontario · Costs of the stay motion - $6,000 payable by LFSN and NNEC · Costs of the factum motion - $2,000 payable by Ontario · Costs of the appeal - $35,000 payable by Ontario · No costs for or against Canada. “Robert J. Sharpe J.A.” “R.A. Blair J.A.” “Paul Rouleau J.A.”