Darrel A. Smith

The defendant municipality moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff contractor's claim for additional construction fees, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff argued that the limitation period was tolled by promissory estoppel due to ongoing negotiations.

The court found that the cause of action was discovered by January 2010 at the latest, when formal default notices were exchanged, and that the defendant made no representation to forgo its limitation period rights.

The motion was granted and the claim for additional fees was dismissed as statute-barred.

Following a successful motion for leave to amend a statement of claim under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $6,088.25, while the defendant argued the amount was excessive and proposed a lower figure.

The court applied the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than calculated through a strict mathematical approach.

It found that certain claimed amounts, including costs for drafting the amended pleading and the appearance fee, were excessive.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $3,745 plus HST and disbursements, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to amend their statement of claim in an action alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligence, trespass, breach of good faith, and unjust enrichment arising from agreements permitting advertising on municipal waste bins.

The defendant opposed certain amendments on the basis that they introduced new causes of action after the expiry of the applicable limitation period.

The court held that the proposed amendments merely provided additional particulars and factual context for an already pleaded breach of good faith claim related to the alleged non-disclosure of municipal advertising directives.

Because the amendments did not advance a new cause of action, the limitation period concern did not bar them.

Leave to amend the statement of claim was granted.

Following the dismissal of a motion to certify a proposed class proceeding, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued that only nominal costs should be awarded because the litigation involved matters of public interest, addressed novel legal issues, and promoted access to justice.

The court held that public attention and bona fide motivations do not convert a case into public interest litigation warranting a departure from the ordinary rule that the successful party receives costs.

Finding the claimed amount reasonable and foreseeable under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court awarded the defendant its full partial indemnity costs.