Ian Russell Peddle

The defendant brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) that the plaintiff had obtained ex parte on a property.

The CPL was based on a 2010 Rent-to-Own Agreement, which required the plaintiff to make payments beyond rent and arrange financing within three to five years.

The plaintiff failed to comply with these terms and did not pursue the purchase option for many years.

The court found no reasonable claim to an interest in land and no triable issue, noting that any alleged improvements could be addressed by way of damages.

The motion to discharge the CPL was granted, and the court invited costs submissions from the defendant.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and a default judgment of $278,821.41.

The defendant's insurance adjuster had inadvertently missed communications from the plaintiffs' counsel, leading to the default.

Applying the five-part test from Mountain View Farms, the court found the failure to defend was due to inadvertence, the defendant moved promptly upon learning of the judgment, and there was an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was granted and the default judgment was set aside.

Following a decision where the defendants' cross-motion to stay the plaintiff law firm's action pending an assessment of accounts was granted, both parties sought costs.

The defendants claimed $9,553.98 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff claimed $24,611.67 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found that there was divided success and that both sides had taken disproportionate and inappropriate steps in the litigation.

Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

The law firm Teplitsky, Colson LLP sued its former clients, the Seiderers, for unpaid legal fees and other claims (breach of contract, misrepresentation, deceit, unjust enrichment, punitive damages, and a charging order/lien), after the Seiderers initiated a bill assessment under the Solicitors Act.

The law firm moved to stay the assessment and for leave to prosecute its action nunc pro tunc.

The Seiderers cross-moved to stay the law firm's action pending the assessment.

The court found no genuine dispute about the retainer that would oust the assessment officer's jurisdiction, concluding the core dispute was about the quantum of fees.

The court dismissed the law firm's motion and granted the Seiderers' cross-motion, staying the law firm's action pending the assessment, and ordered the Seiderers to disclose and pay settlement funds into court.