John Ryder-Burbidge

The applicant sought an extension of time to file financial documents under the Canada Elections Act.

Although the Chief Electoral Officer consented to the extension, the applicant failed to comply with the procedural requirements for an application under Rule 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including failing to file an application record or factum.

The court adjourned the application, directing the applicant to file the necessary materials before the matter could proceed.

The defendant university brought a motion to strike the plaintiff medical student's statement of claim, arguing that the dispute concerned an internal academic decision regarding professionalism and should be pursued via judicial review rather than a civil action.

The plaintiff alleged that the university breached a settlement agreement regarding his remediation program by subsequently requiring a comprehensive psychiatric assessment.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the dispute was purely academic, as the allegations could support a claim for breach of contract regarding the implementation of the academic decision.

Following a nine‑day trial concerning a neighbour dispute involving alleged flooding, trespass, and harassment, the defendants to the counterclaim successfully defended the counterclaim and obtained no damages against them.

The court found that flooding on the neighbouring property had not been exacerbated by the construction of a private golf course and that the counterclaimants failed to prove liability.

On the subsequent costs decision, the successful parties relied on a Rule 49 offer to settle which they had beaten at trial.

The court concluded the matter should never have proceeded to a lengthy trial and that the counterclaimants’ conduct made the litigation unnecessarily protracted and complex.

Costs were awarded largely in accordance with the successful parties’ proposal, including substantial indemnity costs after the offer date.

Following a nine-day trial where the defendants to the counterclaim successfully defended against allegations of exacerbating flooding on the plaintiffs to the counterclaim's property, the successful parties sought costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs to the counterclaim had unreasonably protracted the litigation and failed to accept a formal offer to settle.

Applying Rule 49, the court awarded the successful parties their costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, totaling $269,025.59.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the trial after discovering their counsel had been suspended by the Law Society.

The defendants sought costs thrown away for trial preparation.

The court declined to award costs at this stage, finding that the plaintiffs were blameless for the delay and that the trial judge would be in a better position to determine the issue of costs based on all circumstances, including whether the trial could have proceeded earlier to mitigate costs.