Kara Hamilton

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's claim of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The plaintiff, a dentist, alleged he was misled during negotiations to exercise an option to purchase an interest in a dental practice.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to properly plead the necessary elements of negligent misrepresentation, including duty of care, detrimental reliance, and damages.

The court granted the motion to strike the negligent misrepresentation claim but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim to cure the deficiencies.

The applicant brought an application to remove an exhaust vent encroaching on her property.

The respondents removed the encroachment before the hearing, leaving only the issue of costs.

To determine costs, the court assessed whether the applicant would have succeeded on the merits.

The court interpreted a prior Resolution Agreement between the parties and found it did not grant an easement for the encroachment.

Concluding the applicant would have been successful, the court awarded her costs of $8,000 on a partial indemnity scale.