Carla D. Manias

The plaintiffs were entirely successful at trial in an action regarding the ownership of a valuable piece of real estate.

They sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $46,895.40, plus an additional $1,500 for attendances to settle the judgment.

The defendant argued that no costs should be awarded because the litigation was caused by the plaintiffs' failure to document their intentions clearly, or alternatively, that the costs sought were excessive.

The court rejected the defendant's argument for no costs and awarded the plaintiffs $37,500, finding this amount fair and reasonable given the scope of the engagement, the length of the trial, and the complexity of the issues.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing its claim for damages in negligence or breach of contract resulting from commercial carpet cleaning.

The Divisional Court held that the trial judge's refusal to draw inferences of negligence from circumstantial evidence was open to him and did not constitute a palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment in a debt collection action arising from a loan advanced for a real estate purchase abroad.

The court considered the established factors governing relief from default judgment, including promptness of the motion, explanation for the default, and whether the defendant had an arguable defence on the merits.

Although the court accepted that the motion was brought with some explanation for the procedural default, it found that the proposed defences lacked an air of reality.

The defendant admitted borrowing the funds and partially repaying the loan, and the alleged criminal interest and limitation period defences were unsupported because the plaintiffs sought only repayment of principal and the defendant had acknowledged the debt within the limitation period.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was dismissed and the cross‑motion for summary judgment was rendered moot.