Kathleen McDormand

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on two offers to settle.

The defendants argued costs should be payable in the cause or fixed on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the plaintiff was not entitled to substantial indemnity costs because the first offer had expired and the judgment did not meet or exceed the second offer's terms.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $65,000, inclusive of disbursements, payable forthwith.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant for amounts owing under commercial equipment leases and against the remaining defendants under unconditional guarantees.

The defendants argued there was no valid assignment of the leases, raised credibility issues, and claimed the plaintiff fundamentally breached the leases by providing defective equipment, thereby invalidating the exclusion clauses.

Applying the Tercon framework, the court enforced the exclusion clauses and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted for over $2.2 million against the corporate defendant and $500,000 against the guarantors, but execution was stayed pending the resolution of the defendants' counterclaim.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for judgment after noting the defendant in default for failing to file a statement of defence in time.

The statement of claim sought $15,000 in general damages, loss of income, or loss of competitive advantage.

The court held that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the damages claimed.

The motion for judgment was denied, but the plaintiff was granted leave to obtain a date for an assessment of damages.