Douglas Snider

The plaintiff subcontractor brought an action against the defendant owner for $12,500, representing the statutory holdback the owner failed to retain from the general contractor.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff's construction lien was preserved within the 45-day statutory time limit.

The plaintiff claimed the last date of service was March 26, 2013, while the defendant argued it was March 8, 2013.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence regarding the March 26 date lacked credibility and reliability, concluding the last date of service was likely March 8.

As a result, the lien was not preserved in time, and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment against the defendant for unpaid credit debts.

The motion judge had dismissed summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the defendant's unpleaded defences of non est factum and unconscionability.

The court, in this leave to appeal motion, found reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, particularly regarding the consideration of unpleaded defences.

However, leave to appeal was denied because the proposed appeal did not involve matters of such importance that transcended the immediate parties' interests or would enhance existing jurisprudence.

Following a seven‑day civil trial concerning a prescriptive easement and negligent misrepresentation regarding a shared waterline, the successful plaintiff sought costs exceeding $300,000 after obtaining a declaration that no easement existed and damages of $25,500 against one defendant.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs as the successful party and that her Rule 49 offer justified partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

However, the court found the claimed fees and disbursements excessive and disproportionate to the result achieved, particularly given the plaintiff’s unsuccessful fraud and punitive damages claims and the large damages claim that was not proven.

Exercising discretion under Rule 57, the court reduced the fees by approximately 50% and disallowed certain expert and research disbursements.

Costs were allocated between the defendants in proportion to their responsibility for the issues at trial.