Gregory John Brimblecombe

The plaintiff, 2506045 Ontario Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Jeffrey Thomas Gaskell and Atilla Rahmaty, for breach of a commercial lease and indemnity agreement.

The tenant, Rahmaty, and indemnifier, Gaskell, defaulted on rent payments for a Mediterranean restaurant premises.

The plaintiff terminated the lease and secured a new tenant within three months.

The defendants disputed the quantum of damages, asserting the plaintiff failed to mitigate losses and that the lease was unconscionable or vague.

The court found that the plaintiff took reasonable steps to mitigate damages and that the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.

The court also rejected the arguments of unconscionability and vagueness, noting the defendants' active negotiation of lease terms.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $223,749 plus prejudgment interest.

The appellant, Gordon Dunk Farms Ltd., appealed a summary judgment decision that found its action for negligence and breach of contract against the respondents (designers, contractors, and concrete workers) was statute-barred due to the expiration of the limitation period.

The action stemmed from the collapse of a hog barn.

The motion judge found that the appellant's principals knew or ought to have known the material facts constituting their claim by May 12, 2014, more than two years before the action was commenced on May 24, 2016.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that a "claim" under the Limitations Act, 2002, does not require knowledge of every specific act or omission, but rather sufficient facts to draw a plausible inference of liability.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the action was statute-barred against all respondents.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for well contamination, the court determined costs.

The plaintiff conceded liability for the defendant's partial indemnity costs but disputed liability for the third parties' costs.

Applying the principles from Guarantee Co. of North America, the court found it fair to order the plaintiff to pay the successful third parties' costs, as the main issue litigated was between the plaintiff and the third party who applied the biosolids.

The court fixed total costs at $70,000, apportioned among the defendant and two third parties, noting that the costs claimed were disproportionate to the modest nature of the case and criticizing the parties' failure to make reasonable settlement offers.

The plaintiff claimed her water well was contaminated by municipal sewage waste (biosolids) applied to her neighbor's farmland, alleging nuisance and negligence.

The defendant brought a third-party claim against the farm lessee and the biosolids applicator.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that she failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the biosolids application caused the well contamination.

Crucially, no E. coli., the primary indicator of sewage contamination, was detected in any water samples, despite the presence of other bacteria commonly found in the natural environment.

The court also dismissed the third-party action.

Following dismissal of a civil action arising from an oil leak and claimed remediation damages exceeding $1 million, the successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs and disbursements totalling $210,000.

The plaintiffs argued the fees were excessive, that success at trial was divided regarding remediation issues, and that certain disbursements and expert expenses were unreasonable.

The court applied Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and rejected the argument of divided success, emphasizing that the overriding issue was liability and the defendants were wholly successful.

The court also found the expert report and other disbursements reasonable and proportionate to the complexity and duration of the litigation.

Costs were fixed in favour of the defendants.

The appellant insurance company appealed a summary judgment decision.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial regarding the negligence of anyone other than an unidentified driver, noting the appellant's affidavit lacked a statement of belief in its truth, while the respondents' affidavits unambiguously blamed the unidentified driver.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal.