3 total
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of negligence claims against government defendants for a boat crash and confirmed the Marine Liability Act cap excludes costs and interest.
This appeal arose from a tragic boat accident involving multiple fatalities and injuries.
The Court of Appeal addressed three consolidated appeals: liability of government respondents, interpretation of the Marine Liability Act's monetary cap, and costs.
The court upheld the motion judge's finding that the boat operators were solely liable for the accident, dismissing the appeal against the government respondents.
It also affirmed that the Marine Liability Act's monetary cap for maritime claims for loss of life or personal injury does not include costs and interest.
While leave to appeal the quantum of costs and the Sanderson Order was denied, leave was granted on one specific costs issue, resulting in both estates being held jointly and severally liable for one plaintiff's costs.
Addendum issued to correct arithmetic errors in rent overpayment calculations and clarify deposit return.
The court issued an addendum to its previous written reasons to correct an arithmetic error regarding the overpayment of rent and utilities, setting the correct sum at $63,142.18.
The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $4,613.10 for the June 2019 rent overpayment.
The court clarified that the return of the deposit would be decided under the terms of the lease and would not be returned at this point.
The court held that a commercial lease's rent must be calculated using actual measured square footage rather than an assumed estimate.
This motion concerned the interpretation of a commercial lease between a pharmacy (applicant) and a medical centre (respondent) regarding rent calculation.
The applicant argued that rent should be based on the actual measured square footage of the premises, while the respondent contended it was a fixed amount regardless of space.
The court applied principles of contractual interpretation, including the parol evidence rule, to determine the parties' mutual objective intention.
The applicant also sought reimbursement for overpaid utility charges and the return of a security deposit.
