Emma Wall

This is an appeal from a motion judge's order dismissing the appellants' motion for summary judgment and declaring that the respondents' action was commenced within the limitation period.

The appellants argued the claim was discovered earlier, based on a 2015 telephone conversation and a 2005 memorandum concerning tax consequences of a trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in her application of the relevant statutory provisions and caselaw, particularly Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick.

The court agreed that the information known to the respondents' lawyer was insufficient to ground a plausible inference of liability without expert advice, thus the limitation period began later, making the action not time-barred.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant sought a review of a single judge's order refusing to stay a case management judge's order pending appeal and refusing to stay other proceedings.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's request for review, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the stay principles, particularly regarding the lack of a serious issue given the case management judge's lack of jurisdiction to grant criminal declarations in a civil action.

The Court also granted the respondents' motion to quash the appeal, confirming that the case management judge's order was interlocutory and thus appealable to the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the plaintiffs to strike the defendants' Statement of Defence.

The plaintiffs sought substantial or partial indemnity costs, arguing the defendants' non-compliance with disclosure obligations necessitated the motion.

The court found the plaintiffs' claimed hourly rates excessive for the Northwest Region and the docketed hours unreasonable for a non-complex, largely undefended procedural motion.

Applying principles that costs should be fair and reasonable, reflecting parties' expectations, the court awarded the plaintiffs $7,500.00, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, significantly less than sought.