James Tausendfreund

Following the dismissal of the applicants' claim regarding a turn-key installation of a new milk dairy parlour, the respondent requested $15,000 in costs.

The respondent argued the applicants acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith by pursuing the application despite a signed release and by alleging the respondent caused a mastitis outbreak in their herd.

The Tribunal denied the request for costs, finding that the applicants had a genuine belief that the release was unenforceable and that the respondent's actions caused the mastitis outbreak, and therefore did not act in bad faith.

The applicants, dairy farmers, sought $150,000 in compensation from a farm equipment dealer under the Farm Implements Act, alleging that defective milking and stabling equipment caused mastitis and elevated somatic cell counts in their herd.

The Tribunal found no proven causal link between the equipment and the herd's health decline.

Furthermore, the Tribunal upheld a settlement release signed by the parties, rejecting the applicants' arguments that it was signed under duress or voided by the respondent's subsequent breach of its confidentiality clause.

The application was dismissed.