Joseph Malmazada

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for breach of contract, breach of trust, and unjust enrichment on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The parties were co-owners of a dry cleaning business that was seized by the landlord and sold.

The court found that the plaintiff discovered or ought to have discovered her claim on September 3, 2011, when she learned the business had been sold and she had received no compensation.

Because the action was not commenced until October 31, 2013, more than two years later, the court held the action was statute-barred and granted summary judgment dismissing the claim.

Following a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff the return of a $22,000 deposit and dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim, the court addressed costs.

The defendant argued that because the plaintiff’s recovery fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, the plaintiff should be denied costs under rule 57.05(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that denial of costs under rule 57.05(1) is discretionary and not automatic, particularly where the litigation involved complexity and a multi‑day trial.

Considering the defendant’s role in causing the dispute and the complexity of the proceedings, the court exercised its discretion to award costs to the plaintiff.

Applying proportionality and the factors under rule 57.01, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $27,500.

The plaintiff purchased refrigeration equipment from the defendant for a new retail meat store.

A dispute arose over the payment terms, specifically whether the balance was due before or after the equipment was unloaded at the plaintiff's premises.

The court found that the parties had orally agreed payment would be due only after delivery and installation, making the defendant's refusal to unload the equipment without prior payment a breach of contract.

However, the court held the plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages by refusing to pick up the equipment from the defendant's warehouse, limiting its recovery to the return of its $22,000 deposit.

Following a long-running dispute concerning compliance with a prior court order, the matter returned to the court after cross-motions and prior contempt proceedings.

The plaintiffs sought enforcement of an earlier judgment while the defendants attempted to negotiate a compromise regarding implementation.

Although the court facilitated judicial ADR in hopes the parties’ engineers could reach a practical solution, no agreement was reached until the defendants ultimately accepted the plaintiffs’ engineer’s proposal.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ preparation to enforce the prior order was necessary in the circumstances.

Partial indemnity costs of $4,800 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Following contempt proceedings arising from failure to comply with a prior court order in a neighbour nuisance dispute, the court addressed costs related to an April 2012 hearing concerning sanctions for contempt.

The moving parties sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $15,000.

The court agreed that substantial indemnity was appropriate given the contempt finding and the litigation conduct of the contemnor.

However, exercising moderation due to the ongoing neighbour dispute and the court fixing rather than assessing costs, the court reduced the claimed amount slightly.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 all-inclusive.

In a prolonged neighbour dispute involving drainage and nuisance issues, the moving parties sought further contempt remedies after the responding party repeatedly failed to comply with prior court orders requiring implementation of an engineered drainage solution or payment into court for the work.

The responding party argued that the court‑ordered design was flawed and attempted to relitigate the merits through expert opinions and collateral proceedings.

The court held that a litigant must obey a valid court order until it is set aside through proper appellate processes, regardless of personal disagreement with the underlying remedy.

Applying principles of contempt enforcement and res judicata, the court rejected attempts to revisit issues previously addressed on appeal.

A custodial sanction and compliance conditions were imposed to compel obedience to the outstanding orders.

The appellants appealed three orders relating to a drainage dispute.

They challenged a finding of deliberate and wilful disregard of a prior order, the denial of an adjournment request, and the decision to proceed with a contempt motion rather than transferring the matter to the Drainage Referee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three appeals, finding ample evidence of non-compliance, no error in the exercise of discretion to deny the adjournment, and no error in addressing the contempt motion.

Costs of $12,000 were awarded to the respondents.