Kevin Shawn Klayman

Following the dismissal of the applicants' action and application, the respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the applicants made unfounded allegations impugning their integrity.

The court held that because the proceedings were dismissed without a determination on the merits of those allegations, it could not be said the applicants failed to prove them.

The court awarded the respondents costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $17,500.

The plaintiff brought an application for summary judgment under Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure following the defendant’s default on a truck lease.

The defendant did not dispute the default, arrears, or interest calculation but challenged the value credited for the returned vehicle.

The court found the appraisal relied on by the plaintiff to credit $47,000 for the truck was vague and insufficient to determine the proper credit.

As the only genuine issue was the appropriate valuation of the returned vehicle, the court ordered a trial limited to that issue.

The respondent in an application brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the applicant corporation had admitted it possessed no assets and appeared to have been incorporated solely for the purpose of bringing the application.

The moving party therefore satisfied the first stage of the test demonstrating a basis for security for costs.

The applicant failed to file any responding evidence establishing impecuniosity or demonstrating that its claim had a strong likelihood of success.

The court held that it was just in the circumstances to order staged security for costs totalling $18,271.62 and awarded the moving party partial indemnity costs of the motion.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to set aside a default judgment arising from non-payment of a truck lease.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's reasons were adequate and that the appellant failed to move promptly, lacked a sufficient explanation for her default, and failed to provide evidence of a commercially unreasonable sale.