Christopher Dunn

The third party brought a motion to vary the court's reasons for judgment on a previous motion, seeking to remove adverse credibility findings made against him.

The third party argued he was taken by surprise by the credibility attack and had not attended the original motion to provide his explanation.

The court dismissed the motion to vary, finding that the credibility issue was squarely raised in the evidentiary record, specifically during the third party's Rule 39 examination where he was confronted with evidence of an undisclosed commission.

The court held that the findings were not an accidental slip or based on newly discovered facts under Rule 59.06.

The applicant pool manufacturer sought a declaration that the respondent dealer was required to defend it against third party claims pursuant to a hold harmless and indemnity provision in their dealership agreement.

The third party claims sought contribution and indemnity from the applicant for its own alleged negligence in overseeing a pool installation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the indemnity provision only applied to claims arising out of the respondent's negligence, and did not require the respondent to defend the applicant against allegations of the applicant's own negligence under the Negligence Act.