Adam J. Stewart

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's four summary judgment motions, the successful defendants sought costs of $59,863.88 on a partial indemnity basis or $64,025.38 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued for costs of $14,000.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and found the defendants' claimed costs excessive due to duplication of materials across the four actions and inclusion of costs for the main action.

Applying Rule 57.01 and the principle of what is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of HST.

The plaintiff brought four summary judgment motions arising from lending claims against a principal and related companies, and also sought dismissal of the defendants' counterclaims.

The defendants alleged that a senior employee of the plaintiff induced them to obtain an expensive life insurance policy and rely on promised corporate restructuring and refinancing that never materialized, within a broader factual context involving unauthorized transactions and alleged fraud.

The court held that the matters could not be reduced to simple collection actions because the nature of the relationship, the alleged representations, reliance, and the employee's credibility were central and sharply disputed.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court found genuine issues requiring a trial, including on the limitation defence to the counterclaims.

The parties are neighbours involved in a dispute over rights of way.

The respondents brought a motion under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to stay the applications pending arbitration, relying on an agreement that disputes over maintenance expenses or the nature of use of the rights of way shall be arbitrated.

The court found that the core dispute was about the existence of the rights of way, not their maintenance or nature of use.

The motion to stay was dismissed, except for one alternative claim regarding minimum use guidelines.

The plaintiff credit union brought four actions for repayment of commercial loans against the defendants.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging fraud and misconduct by a former employee of the plaintiff who negotiated the loans.

The plaintiff moved to strike the amended statements of defence and counterclaim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants' pleadings contained sweeping conclusory allegations devoid of supporting material facts, failing to meet the requirements of Rule 25.06.

The pleadings were struck with leave to amend.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judge's finding that the respondent employee had adequately mitigated his damages following wrongful termination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's decision was well supported by the evidence.

The respondent, who was in his fifties with limited education and had worked for the appellant for 19 years, faced diminished re-employment prospects, exacerbated by the lack of a reference letter and accusations of wrongdoing.

The Court held that the respondent made reasonable efforts to find comparable employment and was not obliged to accept non-comparable positions.