Celina DeVuono

The plaintiffs were successful in defeating the defendants' motion for summary judgment and sought costs of $97,824.74 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued the amount claimed was disproportionate and excessive, suggesting an award between $10,000 and $15,000.

The court reviewed the time claimed by the plaintiffs' counsel, finding that the hours spent on preparing affidavits, facta, and other materials were unreasonably excessive and not proportional to the complexity of the motion.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $40,949.89 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The accident occurred in June 2011, and the plaintiff suffered a stroke one month later.

The action was commenced in July 2015.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period was suspended due to the plaintiff's incapacity to commence a proceeding and that the claim was not discoverable until 2015 when a medical report causally linking the stroke to the accident was explained to her.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding both the plaintiff's capacity to commence a proceeding and the date of discoverability, given conflicting medical evidence about her cognitive impairments.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside orders dismissing several construction lien and related breach of trust actions for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied the Reid factors governing relief from dismissal orders under Rule 37.14 and considered whether the delay was adequately explained, whether the missed deadlines were inadvertent, whether the motion was brought promptly, and whether reinstatement would prejudice the defendants.

The court found the litigation delay was extreme and largely attributable to repeated failures by the plaintiff’s former counsel to comply with court‑ordered timelines, coupled with insufficient oversight by the plaintiff.

Although the motion to set aside was brought promptly once the dismissal became known, the delay was not inadvertent and reinstatement would cause real prejudice given the nature of lien and trust claims.

Applying a contextual approach, the court concluded the balance favoured finality and refused to set aside the dismissal orders.