5 total
Appeal from summary judgment dismissed as appellants had no relationship with supplying dealer and were fully compensated.
The appellants purchased a vehicle with a malfunctioning air conditioner and sued the selling dealer, the supplying dealer, and various individuals for over $400,000.
After settling with the selling dealer for a full refund plus additional compensation, the appellants continued their action against the supplying dealer and its manager.
The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims, finding no contractual relationship, no evidence of negligence, and that any damages were already fully compensated.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.
Non-possessory lien under RSLA invalid where vendor never possessed or repaired the vehicle.
The appellant purchased rims and tires for his vehicle, financed by the respondent.
The respondent registered a non-possessory lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act (RSLA) and attempted to seize the vehicle when the appellant defaulted.
The application judge declared the respondent was entitled to the lien.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the vendor never possessed or repaired the vehicle, meaning no possessory lien arose that could be converted to a non-possessory lien or assigned to the respondent.
The court also held that RSLA liens arise by statute, not contract, and the deemed possession provision in s. 3(4) did not apply.
The appeal was allowed and the lien declared invalid.
Successful defendants awarded $20,000 costs after summary judgment dismissal.
Following a summary judgment decision dismissing the action against the moving parties, the court considered submissions on costs.
The successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $46,000 and relied in part on a prior settlement offer.
The self-represented plaintiffs, despite being unsuccessful, also sought costs.
Applying the usual rule that successful parties are entitled to costs and considering proportionality, the amount in issue, and the parties’ reasonable expectations, the court awarded a reduced lump-sum costs award.
Summary judgment granted dismissing defective vehicle claims against trading dealership and its president.
The plaintiffs purchased a vehicle from a dealership that had obtained it via a dealer trade from the moving defendants.
After discovering a defect in the vehicle's air conditioning, the plaintiffs sued multiple parties.
Having settled with the manufacturer and the selling dealership, the plaintiffs continued their action against the trading dealership and its president.
The moving defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.
The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no contract, no evidence of negligence or bad faith, and no factual foundation for personal liability against the president.
Successful appellant awarded $5,000 in costs for a Small Claims Court appeal based on proportionality.
The appellant was successful in an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision and sought costs of $17,185.79 on a substantial indemnity basis.
The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs as there was no relevant offer to settle.
Applying the factors in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the amount at issue ($10,000) and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court found the requested amount unreasonable.
Costs were fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.
