Alan Melamud

This costs endorsement addresses three motions within a consolidated proceeding.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Adair parties (defendants) against the Pichelli parties (plaintiffs) for their successful summary judgment motions, finding that the allegations of fraud and malfeasance were unsubstantiated.

For the summary judgment motion brought by the Vuletic defendants against the Pichelli parties, costs were reserved to the trial judge due to unresolved factual disputes, including an allegation of forgery.

Finally, for a motion to vary a previous decision regarding Ante Kegalj, the Pichelli parties were awarded partial indemnity costs, significantly reduced from their claim, due to the straightforward nature of the motion and issues with their bill of costs.

The defendants in multiple related actions brought motions for summary judgment against the Pichelli plaintiffs, who were investors in a real estate development project.

The plaintiffs alleged that the developers (the Vuletics), a title holder (Kegalj), and the developers' lawyers (the Adairs) engaged in fraudulent and improper conduct.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the Adair defendants, finding that the lawyers owed no duty of care to the non-client investors.

The court also granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against Kegalj, finding no relationship or duty owed to the plaintiffs.

However, the court dismissed the Vuletics' motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of credibility and conflicting versions of the lot purchase agreements required a trial.

The plaintiff sued the defendant shipping company for lost profits after a software update allegedly deleted a custom mark-up feature, causing the plaintiff to underbill its clients for two years.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, relying on an exclusion clause in the software agreement that barred claims for lost profits.

The court granted the motion, finding the exclusion clause applied, was not unconscionable, and did not violate public policy.

The court also granted the defendant's counterclaim for unpaid invoices.

Loblaw Properties sought to declare the Town of Smiths Falls' right to repurchase a land parcel void or unconscionable, arguing it failed to develop the property within the prescribed four-year period.

The Town cross-applied to affirm and enforce its right and correct registration errors.

The court found the Town's right to be a valid equitable interest binding Loblaw, which had full notice of the condition.

The court dismissed Loblaw's arguments regarding uncertainty, penal nature, and unconscionability, noting Loblaw's sophistication and failure to provide proper valuation evidence.

Loblaw's application was dismissed, and the Town's cross-application was granted, including declarations and rectification of the title register.

The applicant sought an order requiring consumer reporting agencies to remove debts older than two years from his credit report, arguing that once the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 expires, such debts cannot be legally enforced and should not be reported.

The court considered whether the limitation period governing civil proceedings should apply to the time frame for reporting debts under the Consumer Reporting Act.

The court held that the statutes serve distinct purposes: the Limitations Act governs the enforcement of legal claims, while the Consumer Reporting Act regulates consumer credit reporting.

Because neither statute incorporates the other, the two‑year limitation period does not restrict the reporting of debts under the Consumer Reporting Act.

The applicant’s Charter argument also failed because the actions complained of involved private entities rather than governmental action.

Following dismissal of a complex multi‑party action on summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs of the entire action in addition to agreed costs of the summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff argued that costs submissions should be limited to the motion and that delay in bringing the motion inflated the defendants’ legal fees.

The court held that where summary judgment disposes of the entire action, the court may fix costs of the entire proceeding, treating the motion similarly to a trial judgment.

Applying the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the defendants’ claimed partial‑indemnity costs by 25% to align with what would have been the plaintiff’s reasonable expectations in a large and technically complex case.

The plaintiff pharmaceutical company stored vaccines with a logistics provider under a master services agreement requiring the plaintiff to obtain all‑risk property insurance covering the stored goods and naming the warehouse operator as an additional insured.

After a refrigeration malfunction allegedly rendered the vaccines unsellable, the plaintiff commenced a subrogated action against the warehouse operator and various contractors responsible for the cooling and monitoring system.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

The court held that the covenant to insure constituted an allocation of risk whereby the plaintiff assumed the risk of loss to the goods and thereby barred tort claims against the warehouse operator for that loss.

The court further held that the covenant extended to contractors and related parties with an identity of interest in the performance of the contract.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action and all cross‑claims.