J. Oladejo

The defendants sought costs of $22,806.35 on a partial indemnity basis after successfully dismissing the plaintiff's action on a summary judgment motion based on an expired limitation period.

The plaintiff, now self-represented, argued she could not pay due to financial hardship.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, including the defendants' prior offer to settle for $5,000, and awarded the defendants costs fixed at $18,000 all-inclusive.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an investment-related civil claim on the basis that it was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and deceit arising from a leveraged investment arrangement arranged through financial advisors.

The court held that the plaintiff knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the material facts giving rise to the claim by May 2009 at the latest.

Because the statement of claim was not issued until January 2012, the action was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The defendant moved to pay funds into court to discharge a construction lien registered against her property.

She sought to reduce the amount payable into court on the basis that the plaintiff’s lien claim was deficient.

The court held that a reduction under s. 44(2) of the Construction Lien Act requires clear and unequivocal proof that the lien is excessive or improper.

On the motion record, the court was unable to assess the strength of the parties’ cases and found the required evidentiary threshold had not been met.

The motion was therefore dismissed, leaving the defendant free to seek discharge of the lien by paying the required amount into court under the statute.