H. Spiegel

Following an appeal of a Rule 76 summary trial judgment that dealt with modest amounts and took less than two hours, the court issued an endorsement on costs.

Given the divided success on the appeal, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The applicant Police Services Board sought judicial review of an arbitration award granting a police officer indemnification for legal costs incurred defending a criminal charge.

The officer had been acquitted of criminal charges but pled guilty to insubordination under the Police Services Act for breaching a directive during the same incident.

The arbitrator found the officer was attempting to perform his duties in good faith when the events giving rise to the criminal charge occurred, despite the breach of the directive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable.

The appellant car dealership appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for breach of contract and awarding $7,785 in damages plus over $14,000 in costs for selling a used van with a tampered odometer.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of liability but found the trial judge erred in calculating damages by comparing the financing costs of the defective van with a newer, more expensive replacement van.

The Court recalculated the damages to $4,996.75 based on the base purchase price minus the trade-in credit, and reduced the trial costs award to $5,000 all-inclusive.

The defendant, Terex Corporation, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs sued for injuries sustained in a forklift accident, alleging that Terex assumed the product liabilities of the original manufacturer through an asset contribution agreement and a share purchase agreement.

Terex argued that the doctrine of privity of contract prevented the plaintiffs from relying on the agreements and that successor liability did not apply.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusion that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding successor liability, particularly under the express assumption theory.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order allowing the respondent bank to amend its third-party claim.

The amendment asserted a novel tortious duty of care owed by the drawer of a cheque to a collecting bank.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's decision that the novel claim was not certain to fail and should be determined on a full factual record at trial.