Austin Riley

On a summary judgment motion arising from a failed contract for a prefabricated modular home, the moving parties sought recovery of deposits and personal liability against the corporate principals.

The court granted judgment against the contracting corporation for breach of contract and held the individual principals personally liable for two deposit payments induced by false representations that framing and roof truss work had commenced or was about to commence.

Applying the civil fraud test and principles governing piercing the corporate veil, the court found the representations were knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth and that the moving parties relied on them in making the payments.

Punitive damages were refused, but storage costs and partial indemnity costs were awarded.

The defendant brought a motion for a declaration that the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function following a motor vehicle accident.

The court applied the three-part test from Meyer v. Bright and considered the plaintiff's evidence, including testimony from his doctor and family members.

The court found that the plaintiff's impairments were permanent, serious, and substantially interfered with his activities of daily living.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, as the plaintiff met his onus of establishing that his impairments met the statutory threshold.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from the decision of Gilmore J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding party F.K.Y. Investments Ltd. No costs were awarded to the Yeung responding parties as they did not file a factum.

This ruling addresses costs following a motion brought by the defendant Bryan Huber to compel the plaintiff to attend two defence medical examinations.

The court initially ordered the plaintiff to attend one examination and reserved on the second, pending the plaintiff's decision to abandon psychological injury and income loss claims.

The plaintiff subsequently provided written instructions to abandon these claims, leading the court to grant an amendment to the Statement of Claim and deem the second medical assessment unnecessary.

The defendant was awarded costs of the motion in the amount of $4,000.

The plaintiffs successfully resisted a motion brought by the defendant to the counterclaim's insurer to remove the plaintiffs' lawyer for an alleged conflict of interest.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale against the insurer and the insurer's lawyer personally.

The court declined to award costs against the lawyer personally, finding his conduct was not unreasonable or derelict.

However, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs directly against the non-party insurer, finding the motion was unnecessary, speculative, and caused needless expense to the plaintiff in preserving her choice of counsel.

Costs were fixed at $13,400 net of setoffs.