Alessia De Gasperis

Following a summary judgment where the plaintiff was awarded significant damages for breach of a promissory note but failed on claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff sought costs of $58,499.81.

The defendant argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court noted the plaintiff beat their settlement offer but declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $40,000 payable by the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against his former business partner for breach of a promissory note.

The defendant argued the contract was frustrated by a third-party fraud and challenged the escalatory interest rate, which reached 60%.

The court rejected the frustration defence as improperly pleaded and factually unsupported, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court enforced the promissory note's 60% interest rate, finding it did not violate the Criminal Code due to transitional provisions, and awarded the plaintiff over $3.6 million.

The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment in a failed real estate transaction.

The plaintiffs, Bertus and Diane Nieuwenhuis, sought damages for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale (the "Taunton APS") with the defendant, FRP Inc. The defendant sought the return of its deposit, arguing the agreement became null and void when conditions were not fulfilled or waived.

The court found that neither party was ready, willing, and able to close on the extended closing date, and neither party tendered or reinstated time of the essence.

The agreement was therefore abandoned, and the defendant was entitled to the return of its deposit.

The plaintiffs' claim for damages was dismissed.