Charles Munro Gastle

The appellant abandoned its appeal, and the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant challenged the court's jurisdiction to award costs for an abandoned appeal and proposed a lower partial indemnity amount.

The Court of Appeal affirmed its jurisdiction under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that Rule 61.14 did not displace this discretion.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs, finding substantial indemnity was not justified.

Delta Elevator Company Limited brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement with 31 Kingsbury Inc. regarding the installation and inspection of elevators.

Kingsbury opposed, arguing that no settlement was reached, or that it should not be enforced, or that granting judgment would be akin to partial summary judgment.

The court found that the parties had reached a legally binding settlement with agreement on all essential terms, and that Delta had not repudiated the agreement.

The court granted Delta's motion, ordering Kingsbury to comply with the settlement terms and pay costs.

The plaintiff moved to amend the statement of claim to substitute the correct corporate defendant after the expiry of the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the plaintiff intended to sue the elevator maintenance company responsible for servicing the elevator at the time of the accident but had mistakenly named a related corporation with a similar name.

Applying the misnomer doctrine and s. 21(2) of the Limitations Act, the court held that the amendment was permissible because the intended defendant knew it was the party meant to be sued and had received prior notice of the claim.

The court rejected arguments that the amendment would cause non‑compensable prejudice, finding that any evidentiary loss occurred within the limitation period and was unrelated to the amendment.

Delay in bringing the motion was also not excessive once counsel discovered the error.