Caitlin Mary-Faith Turner

Following a successful motion for summary judgment regarding an overpayment for artwork, the plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs.

The court found the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation to be reprehensible, obstructive, and untruthful, including failing to provide documentary disclosure and taking unnecessary steps to delay the proceedings.

The court awarded the plaintiffs full indemnity costs in the amount of $33,903.00.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment against the defendant for unjust enrichment (overpayment of $50,000 for artwork), punitive damages, and a constructive trust over a property purchased by the defendant with the overpaid funds.

The defendant denied the claims and challenged the motion.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the defendant's evidence incredible and fabricated, and that he was unjustly enriched.

Punitive damages were awarded due to the defendant's deceitful conduct and obstruction.

A constructive trust was imposed on the property due to the tracing of funds and the defendant's unlikelihood of voluntary payment.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's negligence claim, arguing issue estoppel, abuse of process, and collateral attack based on a prior Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The Board had found the landlord breached maintenance obligations but did not find that the lack of a handrail caused the plaintiff's fall.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding it would be unjust to apply issue estoppel or abuse of process due to scant evidence, unrepresented parties, and lack of detailed reasoning at the Board.

The court also determined that the action was not a collateral attack, as the application of the Occupiers' Liability Act was a new issue not before the Board, and the Board's jurisdiction over that matter was questionable.

The minor plaintiff was injured when struck by a tow truck near the proposed defendants' home.

The minor's father was appointed litigation guardian and sued the tow truck owner and driver, who counterclaimed for negligent supervision and third-partied the homeowners.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiffs moved to add the homeowners as defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father knew the material facts on the day of the accident, and held that a litigation guardian's potential conflict of interest does not suspend the running of the limitation period.