Christopher Spiteri

The plaintiffs were successful on a motion for partial summary judgment and successfully defended a cross-motion to dissolve an interim injunction regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs of over $40,000, relying on an offer to settle and the defendant's conduct.

The court found the plaintiffs' offer to settle was reasonable but noted that both parties expended excessive and unnecessary time on the motions.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $25,000.

The plaintiff tenants brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that a 2009 Minutes of Settlement amended their commercial lease and bound the defendant landlord, who purchased the property in 2012.

The landlord argued it was not bound because the tenants signed an estoppel certificate that did not fully detail the amendments.

The court granted the tenants' motion, finding that the estoppel certificate referenced the Minutes of Settlement, the landlord failed to exercise due diligence by not requesting a copy, and the landlord did not detrimentally rely on the certificate.

Following a trial judgment, the parties made submissions on costs, the proper name of the plaintiff, and the admission of an engineer's report.

The court declined to alter the trial costs disposition, finding that neither the pre-litigation negotiations nor the parties' conduct warranted a change.

The plaintiff was awarded $850 in costs for a dismissed eve-of-trial motion brought by the defendants.

The court granted leave nunc pro tunc for the plaintiff to proceed under its current name and declined to admit additional evidence or reopen arguments regarding the engineer's report, which had already been considered as hearsay.

A contractor commenced a construction lien action arising from landscaping work and a subsequent window replacement contract with homeowners.

The homeowners counterclaimed for significant damages alleging deficiencies in landscaping and improper installation of windows that leaked and were not installed in a good and workmanlike manner.

The court found minor deficiencies in the landscaping work and significant deficiencies in the window installation, awarding set‑off damages for both.

However, the homeowners failed to prove the full magnitude of their counterclaim and the court limited damages largely to the reasonable cost of reinstalling the windows.

After applying set‑offs, the homeowners were ordered to pay the contractor the remaining balance under the contract plus prejudgment interest, with each party bearing its own costs.

The parties brought competing summary judgment motions in a construction lien action involving a modest claim and counterclaim arising from a residential contract.

The motions were opposed as premature due to credibility issues and the early stage of the proceedings.

The court emphasized the limits on a master’s powers to weigh evidence under Rule 20 and the proportionality principles under Rule 1.04 and the Construction Lien Act.

Concluding that summary judgment would likely delay resolution, the court endorsed a consent judgment of reference and directed that the matter proceed by way of a short summary trial before a case management master.

The parties brought competing summary judgment motions in a construction lien action involving a modest claim and counterclaim arising from a residential contract.

The motions were opposed as premature due to credibility issues and the early stage of the proceedings.

The court emphasized the limits on a master’s powers to weigh evidence under Rule 20 and the proportionality principles under Rule 1.04 and the Construction Lien Act.

Concluding that summary judgment would likely delay resolution, the court endorsed a consent judgment of reference and directed that the matter proceed by way of a short summary trial before a case management master.