Chris West

Following a trial where both the plaintiffs' claim and the defendant's counterclaim were dismissed, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs had made two global offers to settle that were not accepted by the defendant.

Although the offers did not strictly comply with Rule 49.10, the court considered them under Rule 57.01 and section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the defendant should have accepted the reasonable offers and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs $80,657.12 in partial indemnity costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

This case involved an action for damages by the plaintiffs (2551965 Ontario Ltd. and Cabin Country Realty Ltd.) for alleged breach of restrictive covenants and interference in contractual/economic relations, and a counterclaim by the defendant (Harold Warkentin) for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer had just cause to dismiss the defendant due to willful misconduct, including verbal threats, unprofessional internal notes, and a conflict of interest regarding a client transaction.

Consequently, the defendant's counterclaim for wrongful dismissal was dismissed.

The court also found the restrictive covenants in the share purchase agreement to be unenforceable against the defendant post-termination, as the geographic scope ("Northwestern Ontario") was overly broad and unnecessary to protect the plaintiffs' legitimate business interests.

As a result, the plaintiffs' claim for damages related to these covenants was also dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the defendants were substantially interfering with a shared right-of-way between their neighbouring properties.

The plaintiff required vehicular access over the right-of-way to satisfy municipal parking requirements for his renovations, but the defendants had built a fence extension and installed concrete slabs blocking access.

The court found that the right-of-way had not been abandoned and that the defendants' structures constituted a substantial interference.

The court ordered the removal of the extension and slabs but dismissed the plaintiff's claims for damages and the defendants' counterclaim for property damage.

The appellant's counsel was unable to obtain instructions from her client and requested to be removed from the record.

The appellant was fully aware of the scheduled hearing but chose to discontinue communication with counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned and awarded costs to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis.