Drew Cameron 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.

The appellant appealed a judgment declaring a mortgage granted by his brother, the estate trustee, to be valid and ordering the partition and sale of the family home.

The respondents cross-appealed the finding that the mortgage only bound the estate trustee's one-third interest in the property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the validity of the mortgage, finding the estate trustee had the legal right to grant it and the respondents were bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

The Court allowed the appeal regarding the Partition Act, as the respondents did not have a right to immediate possession.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, holding that the mortgage bound the entire property because the will gave the estate trustee an unqualified power to postpone sale, preventing the property from vesting in the beneficiaries under the Estates Administration Act.

The moving party sought an order that two related civil actions arising from the same construction project be tried together or sequentially with common documentary production and discoveries.

The court considered Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the actions arose out of the same series of transactions and shared common questions of law and fact relating to subcontract obligations, valuation of work, entitlement to payment, and liability under a payment bond.

The court accepted that there would be significant overlap in witnesses and documentary evidence concerning the bridge project and the dealings among the subcontractor, contractor, owner, and surety.

The court also accepted that separate proceedings could risk inconsistent findings.

The motion was granted and the actions were ordered to proceed together or sequentially with coordinated disclosure and discovery.