Angelo G. Sciacca

Following a failed motion by the defendants to have their trial costs paid by various litigation loan providers, the loan providers sought their costs of the motion.

The court declined to award costs to the loan providers, finding that the defendants' motion raised a novel issue regarding the enforcement of a costs award against a litigation loan provider and the requirement for court approval of litigation loan agreements.

Given the novelty of the issue, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

Following a lengthy trial where the plaintiff was awarded $50,000 but the defendants obtained a costs award of over $3.4 million, the defendants moved to recover those costs from four non-party litigation loan providers who had advanced funds to the plaintiff.

The court declined to order costs against the non-parties, finding that while the loans carried exorbitant interest rates, providing them did not amount to an abuse of process under the 'person of straw' test or the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The court also noted that while litigation loans should be approved by the court in class proceedings, the statutory requirement to do so did not exist at the time the loans were made.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against his insurer after it denied coverage for his vehicle, which was destroyed by fire.

The insurer alleged the plaintiff made wilfully false statements, committed arson, and used the vehicle purchase to launder money.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the plaintiff's insurable interest, whether the fire was accidental, and the insurer's allegations of false statements, noting significant evidentiary gaps and inconsistencies that could not be resolved on a summary basis.

The defendant appealed a Master's order extending the time for the plaintiff to serve the Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff had failed to serve the claim for nearly five years following a motor vehicle accident due to previous counsel's inadvertence.

The defendant argued the Master erred by reversing the burden of proof regarding prejudice.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master correctly applied the law by placing an evidentiary obligation on the defendant to provide details of prejudice, which the defendant failed to do.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to remove opposing counsel on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest arising from prior interactions with one of the defendants during the lawyer’s previous employment at another firm.

The defendants alleged that confidential information was disclosed during a business lunch and argued that the lawyer should therefore be disqualified.

Applying the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin, the court held that the defendants failed to establish that material confidential information relevant to the action had been imparted.

The court further found that any information discussed was either not confidential, not shown to be relevant, or had already been disclosed in the litigation record.

The motion to remove counsel was dismissed and costs were awarded against the moving parties.