Jason Mercier

The defendants sought a nunc pro tunc order to issue a third party claim against a doctor and an unknown individual after the two-year limitation period had expired.

The plaintiffs consented, but the proposed third party doctor opposed the motion.

Applying the framework from CIBC v. Green, the court found that while the defendants met the red-line rule by filing their motion before the deadline, they failed to act diligently in pursuing the claim.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding that the defendants were the authors of their own misfortune and that the proposed third party would be prejudiced by the backdated order.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the successful defendants against the unsuccessful plaintiffs following a trial.

The decision was based on the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, their attempt to re-litigate claims barred by a release, and their rejection of more favourable settlement offers under Rule 49.

The promissory note at the heart of the dispute also stipulated solicitor-client costs for collection.

The court reduced the successful parties' claimed fees to ensure fairness and proportionality, ultimately fixing costs at $172,059.37.

This case involved two actions tried together concerning a residential and commercial development.

The "Plaintiffs" (Huntington Properties Ottawa Inc. and Orville Station Ltd.) alleged fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation against the "Defendants" (Dharma Inc., Akash Sinha, Millerson Group Inc., and The Sinha Family Trust) regarding project finances, development charges, Hydro Ottawa payments, and pre-sold units, seeking to nullify a promissory note.

The "Defendants" (Millerson Group Inc. and The Sinha Family Trust) sought judgment on the promissory note.

The court found that the "Plaintiffs" failed to prove misrepresentation, lack of reliance, or damages.

The court also upheld the validity of releases signed by the "Plaintiffs".

Consequently, the "Plaintiffs'" claim was dismissed, and the "Defendants" were granted judgment on the promissory note for $396,666.00 plus interest.