James Evan Sterling Allin

The plaintiff, Marnic Geldhof, brought a motion to compel a representative of the defendant Economical Mutual Insurance to reattend an examination for discovery and answer refused questions.

The defendants resisted, claiming litigation/settlement privilege over the information.

The core issue was whether communications, including a "without prejudice" letter, lost their privilege when the plaintiff alleged they formed a contract.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to question the defendant's representative about communications related to the terms and existence of the alleged contract, but general investigative notes and file contents remained privileged.

The motion was partially granted.

The applicants, estate trustees of Norman Zock's estate and trustees of the Henson Trust for Stephen Wayne Zock, sought removal as trustees of the Discretionary Trust and court direction to sell the family farm held in the Norman Zock Farm Trust.

The respondent beneficiary, Stephen Wayne Zock, opposed the farm sale and requested that one trustee (Norma) continue.

The court granted Norma Lynn Pierce's removal as trustee of the Discretionary Trust after passing accounts, but declined to remove Gary Zock, imposing specific conditions for his temporary continuation as trustee.

The court also denied the request to sell the farm, finding that the preconditions for sale, specifically Stephen's incapacity to manage personal care or inability to maintain the home to a habitable standard, were not met based on the evidence presented.

The plaintiff, a former retail sales representative, brought an action for wrongful dismissal and mental distress under simplified procedure.

The action settled on the first day of trial for $35,000 in damages.

The parties could not agree on costs, leading to this endorsement.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on Rule 49.10, claiming the settlement was a "judgment as favourable." The court rejected this, finding Rule 49.10 inapplicable as the offer was accepted before trial and no judgment was rendered.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis, considering factors under Rule 57.01, including the principle of indemnity, complexity, amount recovered, proportionality, and the defendant's late acceptance of the offer.

The court reduced the plaintiff's claimed fees and disbursements, particularly for photocopying and time spent on the costs issue itself, and awarded $21,244 in total costs.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment against Stewart Title Guaranty Company for $223,555.74, alleging coverage under their title insurance policy due to structural defects in their home that violated the Ontario Building Code and rendered the property unmarketable.

The court found that while the property's title was unmarketable under Covered Title Risk (CTR) clause 19, coverage was excluded by exclusion clause 7, which pertained to structures not built in accordance with applicable building codes.

The court also found no coverage under CTR clause 20, as there was no evidence of a governmental authority forcing remedial work.

Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against Stewart Title was dismissed.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for inordinate and inexcusable delay, spanning 22 years.

The litigation arose from a business partnership dissolution and minority shareholder dispute from 1993, involving allegations of oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent manipulation of accounts.

The court applied the Langenecker v. Sauvé test under Rule 24.01, finding the delay inordinate and inexcusable, particularly due to the plaintiffs' failure to advance the case and the loss of their entire file, including critical financial documentation and the death of the primary plaintiff and key accountants.

The court concluded that a fair trial was no longer possible due to both presumed and actual prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiffs' action was dismissed for delay.