Alyssa Marie Adams

The court determined costs following a simplified proceeding trial where both the plaintiff's claim (adverse possession, prescriptive easement) and the defendants' counterclaim (injunction, trespass damages) were dismissed.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $172,028.97.

The plaintiff argued for no costs due to divided success or the Rule 76.12.1(1) limit.

The court found the Rule 76.12.1(2) exception applied as the action commenced before January 1, 2020.

Considering mixed success, the defendants' more favourable offer to settle, and the principles of proportionality and cost minimization in simplified proceedings (Rule 76), the court awarded the defendants $75,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision granting judgment on a guarantee in favour of the respondent credit union.

The appellant's defence was that a representative of the credit union had represented to her that she would only be responsible for 25% of the entire loan, despite the documents she signed stating the guarantee was unlimited.

The motion judge rejected the appellant's evidence of misrepresentation and granted summary judgment in accordance with the terms of the guarantee.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no error in the motion judge's determination that there was no genuine issue for trial.