D. Morin

Following a motion by the defendant to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction and for summary judgment, the court stayed the action to allow a labour arbitrator to determine jurisdiction and dismissed the summary judgment motion.

The court then received written submissions on costs.

Despite the defendant's partial success on the jurisdiction issue, the court awarded costs to the plaintiff due to the defendant's unreasonable delay in bringing the motions.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs for the jurisdiction motion and substantial indemnity costs for the summary judgment motion, totaling $270,162.08.

The plaintiff discovered significant structural defects and Building Code violations in his cottage years after purchasing it, rendering it unsafe to occupy.

He claimed coverage under his title insurance policy with the defendant.

The court, applying the Court of Appeal's framework in MacDonald v. Chicago Title, found that the structural defects flowed directly from the inadequacy of the building permit and inspection process, rendering the title unmarketable.

The court held that the loss fell within the covered title risks and was not caught by the policy's exclusions for governmental power or actual knowledge.

Partial judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff on the issue of coverage, with damages bifurcated to a subsequent trial.

The defendants brought an unsuccessful summary judgment motion.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendants acted unreasonably in bringing the motion, as the case involved voluminous exhibits, credibility issues, and a 30-year history, making it clearly unsuitable for summary judgment.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $52,500.