David Brand

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment arising from five equipment lease agreements after the defendants defaulted on payments.

The responding individual defendant argued that he did not sign the agreements, that Ontario lacked jurisdiction, that he was not liable under the contracts, and that damages were exaggerated.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial regarding execution of the agreements, jurisdiction, or contractual liability, noting affidavit evidence confirming the defendant signed the agreements and a contractual clause submitting disputes to Ontario courts.

However, the court determined the evidentiary record was insufficient to assess the reasonableness of the resale of repossessed equipment and therefore could not determine damages on the existing record.

Summary judgment was granted on liability, while the damages issue was adjourned for further submissions.

Following a trial where the plaintiff obtained a modest judgment significantly below both the amount claimed and the defendant’s earlier offer to settle, the court determined costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs despite failing to provide a Bill of Costs or Costs Outline and having pursued an inflated claim inconsistent with discovery evidence.

The court also noted the plaintiff’s blanket denial of a formal Request to Admit, which undermined the purpose of narrowing issues.

Applying Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court declined to award the plaintiff costs and instead awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs from the date of its unaccepted settlement offer.