2 total
Leave to bring partial summary judgment motion denied as it would increase costs and delay.
The plaintiffs sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring a motion for partial summary judgment in an intellectual property dispute regarding the enforcement of a confidential settlement agreement.
The defendants opposed, arguing that the enforceability of the agreement's no-challenge clause raised unsettled public policy issues requiring a full trial record.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that partial summary judgment would likely increase costs, cause further delay, and was an inappropriate mechanism to resolve the complex legal and public interest issues surrounding the no-challenge clause.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs for a successful motion to add a defendant, rejecting the defendants' request to defer costs to trial.
This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where the plaintiffs successfully obtained leave to amend their statement of claim to add an additional defendant, John Shaw, in an intellectual property litigation.
The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the claim against Shaw was statute-barred.
The court found the plaintiffs were entirely successful on the motion, as the primary relief sought (adding the defendant) was granted, and the preservation of a limitation period defence for the defendants did not constitute "divided success." The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs, rejecting their request for substantial indemnity costs due to the absence of reprehensible conduct by the defendants.
The decision emphasizes that unsuccessful opposition to a motion does not, by itself, warrant elevated costs or deferral of costs.
