Howard Darren Krupat

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its motion to strike out and declare void Personal Property Security Act registrations filed by the respondent.

The appellant argued that without a signed security agreement, the PPSA registrations were invalid.

The Court of Appeal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the motion judge's order was interlocutory, not final.

The court held that the order did not finally dispose of the real matter in dispute between the parties, which concerned the equipment's deficiencies and the parties' respective obligations, rather than the validity of the security interest itself.

The appeal was quashed with costs, and the appellant was directed to pursue an appeal to the Divisional Court.

Following a decision on five motions where success was evenly divided, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court reviewed the submissions and the settlement correspondence between counsel, which did not constitute formal Rule 49 offers.

Finding that success remained evenly divided and both parties made good faith attempts to resolve the issues, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The parties brought multiple interlocutory motions in a construction dispute regarding the supply of equipment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to discharge a PPSA registration, finding a valid security agreement existed.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion for security for costs, finding insufficient evidence of impecuniosity.

The court granted the defendant's motion for particulars, as the statement of claim contained bare allegations.

The court partially granted the plaintiff's motion to compel answers to refusals from an examination.

The motion to transfer venue was deferred to the Regional Senior Judge.