Amanda Jennifer Heather McBride

HSBC Bank Canada appealed a summary judgment decision in its favour against Antonio Guido on a personal loan guarantee.

Guido, the principal of Royal Canadian Bedrock Inc., had defaulted on a loan and was bound by a personal guarantee.

Guido's principal defence was that HSBC was bound by a side agreement allegedly engineered by Bruno Campoli, who was retained as an exclusive agent for both Guido and RCB.

Guido claimed Campoli and Michael Thomas & Associates Inc. were also acting as agents for HSBC and made misrepresentations that HSBC would not enforce the guarantee.

Guido also alleged a conspiracy to extract unlawful fees.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to HSBC and dismissed Guido's counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no genuine issue requiring trial and no evidentiary support for Guido's allegations after five years of litigation.

This appeal concerned whether the appellants (vendors) were entitled to terminate an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a vacant lot under paragraph 10 (the "annulment clause") of the OREA standard form APS due to writs of execution against title.

The motion judge found the appellants breached the contract by not exercising the annulment power reasonably and ordered specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that a vendor must make genuine efforts to satisfy title requisitions and cannot rely on the annulment clause if encumbrances, such as writs of execution, could be cleared from the sale proceeds.

The applicant sought an order declaring her retainer and contingency fee agreements with the respondent law firm unenforceable, and for disgorgement of fees, or alternatively, an assessment of fees.

The respondent consented to the unenforceability of the contingency fee agreement and referral to assessment.

The court found a solicitor-client relationship existed and that the respondent was entitled to reasonable compensation on a quantum meruit basis, despite the applicant's rejection of a reasonable settlement offer.

The court fixed the fees and disbursements payable by the applicant to the respondent.

Appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claim against Lloyd's of London on the basis that the action was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The action arose from a 2000 Greyhound bus accident where a passenger grabbed the steering wheel, causing the bus to roll.

The appellants obtained a judgment against the passenger at trial in 2012 but did not pursue recovery from Lloyd's of London until 2016, claiming Lloyd's was the insurer for the passenger.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the limitation period commenced from the trial judgment date and had expired before the action was commenced.

Following a lengthy civil trial involving multiple plaintiffs arising from a motor vehicle incident, the plaintiffs’ claims against several defendants—including a transportation company, police officers, and the provincial Crown—were dismissed.

The successful defendants sought substantial costs after a 56‑day trial and extensive pre‑trial litigation.

The court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 49 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness in fixing costs rather than a strict accounting exercise.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis up to the defendants’ settlement offers and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, with adjustments made for excessive claims and unnecessary attendance of junior counsel.

The court also held the plaintiffs jointly and severally liable for the liability portion of the defendants’ costs, while allocating damages‑related costs severally among individual plaintiffs.

Requests for a Sanderson order and third‑party costs were denied.

A costs decision arising from a multi‑plaintiff bus accident action where one plaintiff settled prior to trial.

The settling plaintiff sought costs based on a proportional share of a collective liability account and individual damages account maintained for all plaintiffs.

The defendants disputed various docketed entries, including costs relating to unrelated proceedings, unsuccessful motions, and non‑taxable disbursements.

Applying the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized proportionality between the settlement value and the requested costs.

The court rejected the full amount sought and instead fixed a global costs award considered fair and reasonable in the circumstances.