The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for damages arising from construction on an adjacent property and a failed retaining wall, or alternatively, to transfer the action to Small Claims Court.
The plaintiffs claimed damages for interference with their home's use and enjoyment, including punitive and aggravated damages.
The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly concerning punitive damages and the complex nature of the crossclaims.
The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is a "rare procedure" and that the motion did not meet the objectives of proportionality, timeliness, and affordability as outlined in *Hryniak* and *Butera*.
