Christian Caffarena

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion to reinstate their action and the granting of the defendants' motions for summary judgment and a vexatious litigant declaration, the court determined the costs payable to the defendants.

The plaintiffs failed to provide responding costs submissions and had a history of ignoring adverse costs awards.

The court awarded the defendants their requested costs on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $85,832.43.

The plaintiff moved for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to extend the set down deadline in an action regarding alleged construction defects in a custom home.

Only one defendant opposed the motion.

The Master found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the litigation delay, noting that much of it was due to accommodating the defendants' requests.

The Master also found no evidence of non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was granted, and a timetable was set for the remaining interlocutory steps.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to set aside previous dismissal orders on the basis of fraud.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment, and the defendants collectively applied to have the plaintiffs declared vexatious litigants under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding no evidence of fraud.

The court granted the municipality's summary judgment motion, finding the claims barred by issue estoppel.

Finally, the court declared the plaintiffs vexatious litigants, noting their 15-year history of abusive litigation, frivolous appeals, and failure to pay over $218,000 in costs awards.

The plaintiff school board sued multiple defendants, including the appellant engineering firm, for damages arising from a collapsed gymnasium wall.

The plaintiff's claim against the appellant was statute-barred under the Professional Engineering Act.

However, the other defendants brought cross-claims for contribution and indemnity against the appellant within the two-year limitation period under the new Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the cross-claims, arguing they could not survive if the main claim was statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002 preserves the right to claim contribution and indemnity even if the plaintiff's direct claim against the concurrent tortfeasor is statute-barred.