Christopher Joseph Bittle

The defendant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding damages to a purchaser of a used vehicle that had been misrepresented as having all‑wheel drive.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in failing to properly consider mitigation and in calculating damages.

The court held that the respondent had taken reasonable steps to mitigate her losses while pursuing rescission through OMVIC and later trading the vehicle in for another.

However, the trial judge erred in including the entire financing cost of the vehicle in the damages calculation.

The appeal was allowed in part and damages were recalculated to reflect the unused value of warranty costs, a deduction for use of the vehicle, and the trade‑in value received.

Following a successful foreclosure claim on a mortgage in default, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis pursuant to the mortgage terms.

The plaintiff claimed $47,075 in legal fees, while the defendant argued for approximately $21,000 on a partial indemnity basis and challenged several bill of costs entries.

The court considered the complexity of the litigation, including limitation issues and the time gap between the debt, mortgage, and enforcement proceedings.

Although the court accepted that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate, it found portions of counsel’s preparation time for discovery and trial excessive.

The court fixed costs at $35,000 on a substantial indemnity basis plus disbursements and HST.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment dismissing a counterclaim on the basis that it was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002 and disclosed no reasonable cause of action against individual plaintiffs.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not establish when the counterclaiming party discovered the alleged misrepresentations concerning the product at issue, and therefore the limitation issue required a full evidentiary record at trial.

The court also found that the pleadings alleged misrepresentations through corporate communications and other channels and were not limited to personal communications with the individual plaintiffs.

The allegations were sufficiently particularized to sustain causes of action including fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and disgorgement.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

A civil action arising from the 2003 purchase of residential property where the defendants allegedly failed to obtain a required certificate of approval for a septic system.

During a pre‑trial in a long‑standing action commenced in 2008 under the Simplified Procedure Rules, the court addressed ongoing delays and the addition of multiple third parties.

To ensure finality and advance the proceeding, the court ordered that the matter proceed to a summary trial with affidavits serving as examinations‑in‑chief and imposed strict procedural deadlines for document disclosure, expert reports, affidavits, requests to admit, and trial materials.

The court also fixed the trial date and limited cross‑examinations.

The plaintiff sought foreclosure on a mortgage securing loans advanced to her spouse and his son, who were registered owners of the mortgaged property.

One defendant disputed executing the mortgage and argued that any enforcement was barred by the limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the defendant had signed the mortgage and that the document was valid and enforceable.

Interpreting the mortgage as collateral security with a fixed term and demand feature, the court held that the limitation period had not expired because demand was made in 2008 prior to maturity of the mortgage term.

The court granted foreclosure and possession of the mortgaged property.