Alex Flesias

Following a trial in a commercial dispute arising from an agreement of purchase and sale for a property intended to be converted into a motion capture studio, the successful plaintiff sought costs of approximately $191,895 including fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff relied on Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that an offer to settle entitled it to substantial indemnity costs after the date of the offer.

The court found the offer to settle was not served within the timeframe required by Rule 49.10 and the offer itself was not provided to the court.

While the judgment exceeded the amount of the offer, the court declined to award elevated costs and instead assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis globally.

Considering the length of the thirteen‑day trial and the involvement of expert witnesses, the court awarded reduced total costs.

The plaintiff purchased a building from the defendant to use as a motion capture studio.

The agreement required the defendant to complete specific structural renovations.

The defendant commenced work without a building permit, resulting in an order to comply from the city, and ultimately failed to complete the work.

The plaintiff took over the project, hired professionals to obtain permits and finish the renovations, and sued for completion costs and lost profits due to the delay.

The court found the defendant in breach of contract and awarded the plaintiff damages for completion costs, recurring lost profits, and a lost extraordinary business opportunity, while allowing a small portion of the defendant's counterclaim for agreed extras.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim arising from a prior settlement involving the sale and transfer of property.

The court found that the plaintiff had executed minutes of settlement, a release, an agreement of purchase and sale, and a transfer, and had received the agreed payment in 2005.

Any alleged additional losses would have been discovered no later than November 1, 2005, making the claim subject to the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act.

Because the action was not commenced until August 28, 2008, it was statute-barred.

The court also held that a conspiracy claim could not succeed where only one defendant remained and noted that the remaining defendant acted only as a trustee of the property.

The action was dismissed on summary judgment without costs.