Christine Boulos

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking recovery of interest, penalties, legal fees, and financing costs arising from the defendant purchaser’s failure to promptly remit HST payable under an agreement of purchase and sale for land.

After the Canada Revenue Agency reassessed the transaction and imposed HST liability on the plaintiff, the plaintiff paid the tax along with associated interest and penalties.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the interest and penalties because they directly resulted from the defendant’s failure to timely fulfill its contractual obligation to remit HST.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the remaining claimed damages, including legal and financing costs, as these may have been avoidable if the plaintiff had provided an invoice requested by the defendant and the CRA.

Partial summary judgment was granted for the interest and penalties only.

The defendant dealership moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' personal injury claim and the co-defendant insurer's cross-claim, arguing that the driver's prior criminal conviction for taking the vehicle without consent conclusively established a lack of consent.

The co-defendant insurer opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the criminal conviction did not have preclusive effect because the driver faced little jeopardy and there was no robust examination of the facts.

The court also held that the insurer had standing to oppose the motion and maintain its cross-claim despite not yet having indemnified the plaintiffs, in order to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.