Alessia Petricone-Westwood

Following a trial where plaintiffs obtained $40,000 in damages and injunctive relief, this endorsement addresses costs.

The plaintiffs sought over $100,000 in costs, while defendants argued for proportionality given the damages awarded were within Simplified Procedure limits.

The court considered the plaintiffs' primary objective of injunctive relief, which necessitated the ordinary procedure, and their unaccepted offers to settle.

Despite the high costs relative to damages, the court found the plaintiffs' litigation conduct reasonable and awarded them $90,000 in all-inclusive costs, declining substantial indemnity but recognizing the legitimacy of the expenses incurred.

The plaintiffs sued their neighbours for nuisance arising from the installation and use of an outdoor wood-fired boiler that emitted noxious smoke and odours onto their property.

Prior to trial, the defendants agreed to remove the boiler and consented to an injunction prohibiting its future use, leaving only the assessment of damages to be tried.

The court rejected the defendants' preliminary arguments that the action was barred by res judicata from a discontinued Small Claims Court claim and that no actionable nuisance was established.

Finding that the smoke caused a serious and persistent interference with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property, the court awarded general damages of $20,000 to each plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order to permit them to obtain soil and groundwater samples from a neighbouring property owned by a non-party, after the action had been set down for trial.

The plaintiffs sought the samples to allow their expert to perform forensic environmental testing to respond to the defendants' expert reports regarding PCB contamination.

The court granted leave to bring the motion, finding the expert's need for additional sampling constituted an unexpected change in circumstances.

The court also granted the inspection order, concluding that the testing would be useful and probative in determining whether the contaminants on the plaintiffs' property originated from the neighbouring property.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages after Ms. Armstrong, a prospective employee, suffered an L4 vertebrae burst fracture while demonstrating her ability to hitch a U-Haul trailer during a job interview at the defendants' garage.

The trial proceeded on the issue of liability only.

The court found that the defendants owed a duty of care to Ms. Armstrong, both as occupiers of the premises under the Occupiers’ Liability Act and as a quasi-employer.

However, the court concluded that the defendants did not breach the standard of care, as the injury was not reasonably foreseeable given the circumstances, including Ms. Armstrong's assurances of her lifting capabilities and the lack of evidence of industry standards or obvious negligence.

The action was dismissed.

The respondent lawyer brought a motion to oppose confirmation of an assessment officer's certificate, which ordered him to refund $13,308.55 to his former clients.

The clients had retained the lawyer under a block fee agreement but terminated the retainer before trial.

The assessment officer reduced the lawyer's final account and deducted the full amount of the original retainer paid.

The court found no procedural unfairness in the assessment hearing but held that the assessment officer erred in principle by applying the full original retainer against the final account, as an earlier interim account had not been referred for assessment.

The court substituted an order requiring the lawyer to refund $6,947.04.