Donald Erwin Crabbe

The Moving Parties sought costs for a successful motion to appoint an arbitrator.

The Responding Parties opposed the motion and the costs request, arguing for no costs or partial indemnity, citing a "chilling effect." The court found the Moving Parties were entitled to costs as they succeeded on their motion.

While the Moving Parties sought substantial or partial indemnity costs of $23,598.56 or $16,264.97 respectively, the court awarded fixed costs of $8,000 in fees plus disbursements and taxes, totaling $10,637.80, finding this amount fair and reasonable given the circumstances and the conduct of the Responding Parties.

Following a Rule 21.01(1) motion to strike portions of a statement of claim alleging civil conspiracy and misappropriation of funds, the court previously struck the claim entirely against one defendant while granting leave to amend as against other moving defendants.

The parties provided costs submissions.

The plaintiff indicated its intention to bring a Rule 59.06 motion seeking reconsideration and leave to amend the pleadings against the defendant whose claim had been struck.

The court held that the differing procedural positions of the defendants could affect the proper assessment of costs and that determining costs immediately risked a potentially inequitable or duplicative award.

The court therefore adjourned the determination of costs until after the anticipated Rule 59.06 motion.

The moving defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the statement of claim alleging civil conspiracy and knowing receipt.

The plaintiff alleged that certain defendants participated in a scheme involving inflated pricing of asbestos encasement products supplied to a hospital project, resulting in breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties.

The court reviewed the elements required to plead civil conspiracy and knowing receipt and concluded that the pleadings lacked essential factual allegations supporting either cause of action.

The allegations were largely speculative and failed to establish concerted unlawful conduct or knowledge of misappropriated trust funds.

The court struck the impugned pleadings, granted leave to amend for most defendants, and struck the claim entirely against one defendant without leave to amend.