D. Loucks

The plaintiff brought actions claiming ownership of a 1973 Dino Ferrari and interests in his parents' motel business, alleging improper conversion of assets by his mother's attorneys for property.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the motel was a partnership between the parents, the plaintiff was merely an employee, and the Ferrari was an asset of the motel business despite being registered in the plaintiff's name.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment, oppression under the Business Corporations Act, and conversion of personal property, granting summary judgment in favour of the defendants.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for a capacity assessment of his mother, the successful respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $115,000 based on Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court held that Rule 49.10 does not apply to award substantial indemnity costs when a plaintiff's claim fails entirely.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court found the time spent by the respondents' counsel was excessive and not proportional to the straightforward nature of the issues.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 for the respondent mother and $10,000 for the respondent attorneys.