K.W. McKenzie

The plaintiffs, Whitesand First Nation and a holding company, sought to maintain a Mareva injunction freezing assets of the defendants up to $17.55 million CDN.

The defendants had received grant funds from the plaintiffs to secure financing for a biomass power plant project but failed to obtain financing by the contractual deadline.

The defendants moved to set aside the Mareva injunction, arguing insufficient disclosure on the ex parte motion, and sought security for costs and a stay pending alternative dispute resolution.

The court found the plaintiffs made full and fair disclosure, met the test for a Mareva injunction, and dismissed all of the defendants' motions.

The court found the underlying agreement was null and void as the defendants failed to secure financing by the deadline, and therefore the ADR provisions no longer bound the parties.

The defendant, Mr. Corriveau, successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claim and on his counterclaim.

This endorsement addresses the costs of the motion and the action.

Mr. Corriveau sought costs on a partial indemnity basis up to May 5, 2017, and substantial indemnity thereafter, totaling $111,140.18.

The plaintiffs, Custom Home Interiors Inc. and Obvious Advantage Inc., acknowledged Mr. Corriveau's entitlement to partial indemnity costs but disputed the quantum, arguing the proceedings were uneconomical.

The court awarded Mr. Corriveau partial indemnity costs of $70,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, finding his offer to settle did not warrant substantial indemnity costs due to its limited acceptance window and timing.

The court also reduced claimed fees for excessive time on the summary judgment motion and disallowed fees related to a Law Society complaint.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract and negligence regarding the installation of a video wall system, claiming the system never worked.

The defendant counterclaimed for the unpaid balance of the contract and extra charges, and moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and grant his counterclaim.

The court first granted a misnomer motion to correct the plaintiff's corporate names.

On the merits, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the defendant completed the work, the system functioned properly, and the delays were not the defendant's fault.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and granted summary judgment on the defendant's counterclaim for the unpaid balance and extras.

Following a decision on five motions where success was evenly divided, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court reviewed the submissions and the settlement correspondence between counsel, which did not constitute formal Rule 49 offers.

Finding that success remained evenly divided and both parties made good faith attempts to resolve the issues, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The parties brought multiple interlocutory motions in a construction dispute regarding the supply of equipment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to discharge a PPSA registration, finding a valid security agreement existed.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion for security for costs, finding insufficient evidence of impecuniosity.

The court granted the defendant's motion for particulars, as the statement of claim contained bare allegations.

The court partially granted the plaintiff's motion to compel answers to refusals from an examination.

The motion to transfer venue was deferred to the Regional Senior Judge.