Background
T.C.O. Agromart Ltd., an agricultural supply company, brought an action against Sutton Farms (Nacona) Ltd. Justice Karen Jensen of the Superior Court of Justice dismissed or decided against the appellant at trial (2025 ONSC 1996, dated March 31, 2025). T.C.O. Agromart appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
On May 27, 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in its substantive reasons (2026 ONCA 371), awarded costs of the appeal to the appellant, and advised the parties that the appellant was prima facie entitled to its trial costs as well. The court urged the parties to agree on the quantum of those costs.
The parties subsequently reached agreement on the amount of trial costs owing, and this costs endorsement gives effect to that agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal (Gillese, Coroza, and Osborne JJ.A.) issued a costs order requiring the respondent, Sutton Farms (Nacona) Ltd., to pay the appellant trial costs in the agreed sum of $250,000, all inclusive.
This endorsement is procedural in nature and does not revisit the merits of the underlying dispute. It gives formal effect to the parties’ agreement on quantum following the court’s earlier ruling that the successful appellant was presumptively entitled to trial costs.
Key Takeaways
- A party who succeeds on appeal is prima facie entitled not only to costs of the appeal but also to costs of the trial below, subject to the court’s discretion.
- Appellate courts will encourage parties to negotiate and agree on the quantum of costs rather than litigating that issue separately.
- Where parties reach agreement on costs, the court will formalize that agreement by order, providing an efficient resolution to the costs dispute.
Why It Matters
This brief endorsement illustrates the practical consequence of a successful appeal in Ontario: the winning party can recover both appeal and trial costs from the unsuccessful respondent, potentially resulting in a substantial all-inclusive award. The $250,000 trial costs figure underscores the financial stakes of commercial agricultural disputes litigated through to appeal.
Practitioners should note that appellate success triggers a presumptive entitlement to trial costs, incentivizing appellants to pursue meritorious appeals and giving respondents reason to settle costs disputes without further litigation. The underlying substantive decision (2026 ONCA 371) would be the primary authority on the law governing the parties’ commercial relationship.