Geraldine Acosta

The court considered a motion by the plaintiff to strike portions of the defendant’s statement of defence and counterclaim in a property dispute.

The court found that much of the defendant’s pleading was irrelevant, scandalous, or pleaded evidence rather than material facts, and that it amounted to an abuse of process.

The court struck numerous paragraphs and ordered the defendant to serve and file a fresh, compliant pleading, with the process to be supervised by the court.

The plaintiff, D.H. Anderson Investments Inc., sought an interim and permanent injunction to remove the defendant, Wilma Castanares, from its property and to strike portions of her statement of defence and counterclaim.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the plaintiff had a strong prima facie case for ownership, that irreparable harm would result if relief was not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The court found no evidence of a gift or constructive trust in favour of the defendant and held that her occupation of the property was insufficient to establish any legal or beneficial interest.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs after being the more successful party at trial regarding property ownership and unjust enrichment claims.

The defendant argued for mixed results and that the plaintiff's offers were not more favourable.

The court found the plaintiff was the more successful party but noted mixed results and that the plaintiff's offers did not meet the Rule 49 threshold for substantial indemnity.

The court also considered the defendant's unreasonable conduct regarding the property listing.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, with a reduction for mixed results, totaling $17,573.05, payable from the defendant's share of the property sale proceeds.