3 total
Costs of $18,000 awarded to successful defendants following dismissal of action on summary judgment.
The defendants sought costs of $22,806.35 on a partial indemnity basis after successfully dismissing the plaintiff's action on a summary judgment motion based on an expired limitation period.
The plaintiff, now self-represented, argued she could not pay due to financial hardship.
The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, including the defendants' prior offer to settle for $5,000, and awarded the defendants costs fixed at $18,000 all-inclusive.
Summary judgment granted dismissing claim as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act.
The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an investment-related civil claim on the basis that it was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The plaintiff alleged negligence, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and deceit arising from a leveraged investment arrangement arranged through financial advisors.
The court held that the plaintiff knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the material facts giving rise to the claim by May 2009 at the latest.
Because the statement of claim was not issued until January 2012, the action was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period.
The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; attempting to relitigate an issue after declining to participate in prior proceedings is an abuse of process.
The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike out portions of his amended Statement of Claim and Defence to Counterclaim that challenged the validity of a prior judgment.
The motion judge found that the appellant's attempt to relitigate the issue, after declining to participate in a previous motion where he had notice and an opportunity to be heard, constituted an abuse of process.
The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.
