Darren J. Smith

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment and constructive trust related to unpaid construction work.

The court found that a contract existed between the parties and that the Construction Lien Act provided a comprehensive statutory scheme, both constituting juristic reasons for the alleged enrichment.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that a "quasi-domestic relationship" between the parties negated these juristic reasons.

Consequently, the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

This decision concerns the costs of a motion for particulars where success was divided.

The defendants sought particulars of allegations in the statement of claim, and the court ordered some particulars while dismissing others.

The court declined to accept further costs submissions, emphasizing the need for an expeditious process.

Finding that success was more or less evenly divided and that both parties contributed to the issues, the court concluded that no order for costs was fair and reasonable.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking particulars of numerous allegations in the plaintiff's statement of claim, particularly those alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of trust.

The court found the statement of claim generally sufficient but ordered the plaintiff to provide specific particulars regarding allegedly improper payments, including personal expenses, loans, liabilities, and consulting fees, as identified in paragraph 60 of the statement of claim.

Other requested particulars, especially concerning the distribution of sale proceeds and general allegations, were dismissed as either sufficiently pleaded or matters for oral discovery.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing claims alleging that the plaintiffs were defrauded when their share in a real estate syndicate held through a trust was misappropriated and transferred to the moving parties.

The motion argued the claims were statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiffs discovered the claim by 2005 but did not join the moving parties until 2008.

The court held that if the Limitations Act, 2002 applied, the claim would be out of time; however, uncertainty remained whether the Real Property Limitations Act governed claims seeking equitable interests in land.

Because it was unclear which statutory regime applied, a genuine issue requiring a trial existed regarding the applicable limitation period.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.