James B. Barnes

The Roman Catholic Corporation of the Episcopal Archdiocese of Ottawa brought a motion for reconsideration of an appeal that had been allowed on June 5, 2017.

The motion was dismissed on the grounds that it was not an exceptional case warranting reconsideration, and that the moving party was attempting to raise issues on the motion that could have been, but were not, raised on the original appeal.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis, payable forthwith.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, arguing the action was statute-barred by the expiry of the limitation period.

The plaintiffs purchased a renovated house in 2008, experienced a minor basement leak in 2009, and discovered significant structural damage and a larger leak in 2011.

The action was commenced approximately two years after the 2011 discovery.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to rely on the vendors' representations and that the concealment of deficiencies and misrepresentations displaced the "buyer beware" principle.

The court also determined it was unreasonable to expect the plaintiffs to conduct extensive investigations after the initial minor leak.

The plaintiff was unsuccessful on its third motion seeking payment out of court of $33,900.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The defendant sought $15,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued costs should be deferred to the trial judge or made payable in the cause on a partial indemnity basis.

The court awarded the defendant costs of the motion fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable in the cause, noting that both parties were responsible for delays in the litigation.

The plaintiff brought a motion for the release of $33,900 paid into court pursuant to a prior order.

The prior order required the defendant to release a wine inventory to the plaintiff 'on or before' September 30, 2014, for a fundraising auction, and required the plaintiff to pay funds into court pending resolution of the defendant's claim for past services.

The plaintiff argued the defendant breached the order by not releasing the wine in time for the auction.

The court found that 'on or before' meant any time on September 30, and that the defendant had complied by making the wine available that evening, but the plaintiff failed to pick it up.

The motion for payment out of court was dismissed.