4 total
Successful plaintiffs awarded substantial indemnity costs payable jointly and severally after matching their offer to settle.
Following a nine-day trial where the plaintiffs successfully obtained a declaration that a property transfer was a fraudulent instrument and vested a 72.97% interest in their names, the plaintiffs sought costs.
The plaintiffs had made an offer to settle that they matched or exceeded at trial.
The court rejected the defendants' arguments to depart from the general rule regarding offers to settle, finding the defendants' conduct reprehensible and negligent.
The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.
Title rectified after bare trustee fraudulently sold property by falsely swearing he was not an execution debtor.
The plaintiffs, beneficial owners of a property, sought a declaration of ownership and a vesting order after the defendant bare trustee sold the property without their consent.
The trustee, who was subject to personal executions, signed a false affidavit stating he was not the execution debtor to complete the sale.
The court found the trustee was a 'fraudulent person' under the Land Titles Act and the transfer was a 'fraudulent instrument'.
The purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser without notice, as suspicious circumstances put him on inquiry.
The court declared the transfer void and ordered the title rectified to reflect the beneficial ownership interests.
An appraiser whose file was inadvertently destroyed may still testify as a participant expert under Westerhof.
The defendants brought a motion to prohibit the plaintiffs from calling Donald Raymond to give expert opinion evidence based on his 2005 appraisal report for the Quigley Hill property.
The defendants argued that Raymond failed to comply with Rule 53.03, did not qualify as a "participating or other expert" under Westerhof due to file destruction and lack of direct participation in the sale, and that his opinion was irrelevant.
The court found Raymond's appraisal relevant, that he qualified as a participant or non-party expert under Westerhof despite his file being inadvertently destroyed, and that any prejudice to the defendants was minimal and cured.
The court also noted both parties shared blame for not pursuing the "best efforts" undertaking more diligently.
The motion was dismissed.
Insurance cancellation was effective when accepted by the broker on the insurer's behalf.
The appellants appealed a decision finding that the defendant no longer had insurance with the respondent for a 1970 GMC truck at the time of a motor vehicle accident.
The defendant and his insurance broker had signed a form to delete the truck from the policy effective December 10, 1993.
The accident occurred on December 27, 1993.
The appellants argued the cancellation was not effective until processed by the insurer in January 1994.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's finding that the broker had authority to accept the cancellation on the insurer's behalf, making it effective on December 10, 1993.
The appeal was dismissed.
