Catherine Marie-Pier Latulippe

The defendant bank brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an action alleging damages arising from a writ of seizure and sale placed on the plaintiff’s property following a Small Claims Court default judgment.

After the default judgment was set aside and a Small Claims Court trial later determined the plaintiff’s liability for the underlying credit card debt, the bank argued that issue estoppel barred the plaintiff from relitigating liability in the Superior Court action.

The court held that the elements of issue estoppel were satisfied regarding liability for the debt, given the final Small Claims Court judgment between the same parties.

However, the court found that the claim alleging the bank wrongfully refused to lift the writ despite an offer to pay disputed amounts into court had not been adjudicated previously.

Summary judgment was therefore granted only with respect to the liability issue, while the claim concerning the alleged wrongful refusal to lift the writ and resulting damages was allowed to proceed to trial.

At a contested status hearing, the defendant sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s action for delay.

The action alleged breach of contract and negligence arising from the defendant’s failure to publish advertisements in telephone directories.

Applying the test from appellate authority, the court considered whether the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay and whether the defendant would suffer non‑compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The court held that explanations including lack of communication from defence counsel, internal file management failures, and the absence of an external client were not reasonable explanations for over two years of inactivity.

As the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the litigation delay and did not fully establish absence of prejudice, the action was dismissed.